ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Dunbarton County Requistion

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered representations from the burgh of Mihigavie protesting against the imposition of the county of Dunbarton's requisition for an additional sum of £2,823 as a consequence of air-raids on the burgh of Clydebank in March, 1941; that the sum mentioned represents an increase in the burgh rates of 1s. per £ and, as this district has no industries due to war activities and that hardship will ensue from the proposed increase, will he take steps to relieve this burgh?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I have had representations from the burgh of Milngavie and other local authorities affected by the Dunbarton County requisition. Inquiries are being made into the extent to which, as a result of air-raid damage, the burden on the ratepayers may be increased in the current year, with a view to ascertaining whether the position warrants assistance under the Government scheme for assisting local authorities.

Mr. McKinlay: In view of the fact that every adjoining county has had substantial reductions in rates, is there any reason why bombed areas should be asked to pay for their suffering?

Mr. Johnston: Most urgent inquiries are being made, and as soon as replies come from the burghs concerned the whole position will be examined.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State have regard to the fact that the Scottish Office asked the town of Milngavie to make provision for over 200 evacuees and

that Milngavie had to make provision for almost 3,000?

Tweed and Cloth Trade

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to prevent the disappearance of the finer tweed and cloth trade of Scotland; and, in particular, will he bear this industry in mind in connection with his plans for post-war Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: I am advised by the Scottish Advisory Council on Industry that the Scottish tweed and cloth trade is receiving a fair share of Government work and a fair allocation of wool for civilian production. If my hon. Friend has any information to the contrary I shall be glad to ask the Advisory Council to look into it. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Secretary of State see to it that in the case of any more new industries in Scotland Fife gets a fair share of them?

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to preserve the export trade of the finer tweed and cloth industry of Scotland; and whether he is aware that unless steps are now taken to assist the industry, which largely depends on the skill of its workers, this valuable export trade may be lost?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Exports of woollen goods, as of other goods, have had to be limited, but I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that Scottish industry is getting its fair share of the present export trade.

Poultry Feeding-Stuffs

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider the issue of a limited quantity of feeding-stuffs for poultry in cases where the owners are aged or infirm and it can be proved that this is their main source of livelihood?

Mr. Johnston: I have asked agricultural executive committees to report upon any cases of exceptional hardship of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Boothby: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that when


he receives these reports some action may be taken in the cases of exceptional hardship?

Mr. Johnston: I do not think that I ought to be pressed on that until I see the extent to which these cases arise. As the hon. Member is aware, a general relaxation of the provision is not possible. A relaxation is already being made for blind persons.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Colliery Canteens

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of canteens now established at coal mines; what proportion of these supply hot meals; and what is the number of pits at which no canteen facilities are provided?

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): Eight hundred and nineteen coal mines employing more than 50 persons have canteens established, and 71 mines employing less than 50 persons have been provided with a food service. Canteens supplying full meals are in operation at 123 mines, under construction at 181 and in preparation at 147, making a total of 451 covering 57 per cent. of the personnel of the industry. Hot snacks are obtainable at a number of the other canteens also. Two hundred and eleven mines employing more than 50 persons have no canteen facilities at present, but at 110 of these, building or other preparatory work is in progress towards establishing canteens, and at nearly all the others the workmen do not want canteens.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister taking-steps to increase the number of canteens which are providing full meals? Is he aware that the facilities so far provided are short of the real need if miners are to maintain their health?

Major Lloyd George: Anything I can do to push that forward I shall do, as I attach the greatest importance to that policy.

Miners' Diseases.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the incidence of industrial diseases among coalminers is

increasing; whether he will give figures showing the increase in the number of cases of dermatitis and the reasons for the increase?

Major Lloyd George: As indicated in a reply to a Question by my hon. Friend on 10th February, there has been some increase in certain categories of disease and some decrease in others during recent years. For reasons which are at present obscure the number of cases of dermatitis among miners Certified by examining surgeons for purposes of Workmen's Compensation has increased from 224 in 1937 to a provisional figure of 571 for 1941. As the problems of dermatitis also arise, and to a greater extent, in the case of factory workers, I am consulting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service as to the best lines of investigating the matter more closely.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is considerable medical opinion among the medical men who serve in the mining areas that this increase in dermatitis, which is very serious, is due to certain deficiencies in the diet? Will he have immediate inquiries made into that point?

Major Lloyd George: I have had inquiries made into one section of diet to which the hon. Member has previously referred. He will not be surprised to hear that medical opinion is exactly the opposite. There has been an increase which has not been confined to the mining industry nor to the war years. I am making the most careful inquiries.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will the Minister consult the medical officer of the Ministry of Supply as a great many cases of dermatitis have occurred in Royal Ordnance factories, and he is rather an expert on the matter?

Major Lloyd George: indicated assent.

Coal-Stocking Dump Site.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the cost of equipping the site of the coal-stocking dump, of which he has been informed; why, after this expenditure, the site has been abandoned without any coal being laid down; and whether he has any statement to make regarding storage nearby?

Major Lloyd George: The site to which my hon. Friend draws attention is one of


a number of sites in the colliery areas which my Ministry has equipped for the reception of a substantial tonnage of coal in the event of transport difficulties which might interfere with normal distribution to consumers, and which would otherwise involve the closing of pits. The site has not yet been used, but there is no question of abandoning it, and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that this is an essential form of insurance against possible loss of production.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware the first part of the Question relates not to the site he mentions but to another site which is being put within two miles of the one which is more or less completed?

Major Lloyd George: I thought the one to which the hon. Member's Question referred was the one with which I have dealt in my answer. If I have misunderstood him, I shall be very glad to look into the matter.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister think it wise to proceed with this expensive scheme when within a region of five miles there are facilities for up to 750,000 tons of coal to be dumped and there is none lying there at the present time?

Major Lloyd George: The fact that none is lying there has no bearing on the matter, as these facilities are for emergency purposes. I dealt with the case which I thought was the one the hon. Member referred to, and there, I am satisfied, there is no waste at all.

Blocked-Up Windows (Translucent Material)

Mr. Colman: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the large amount of fuel which is wasted in providing light to illuminate rooms without sufficient natural light owing to the total or partial blocking up of windows with opaque material following air-raid damage; and whether, in these circumstances he can arrange with the departments concerned to release a greater quantity of translucent material for the repairing of damaged windows up and down the country?

Major Lloyd George: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As to the second part, the difficulty of restoring daylight to such rooms arises

from the shortage of materials, but I am considering, in conjunction with my Noble Friend the Minister of Works and Planning, the possibility of increasing the supply of translucent materials.

Laid-off Miners (Utilisation)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make it possible that miners ready for work but not required will, instead of being laid off, be given the opportunity of assisting in the recovery of scrap-metal of various kinds in the workings?

Major Lloyd George: Provided that it is not possible for arrangements to be made for miners laid off their usual work to be employed in other work which will directly or indirectly assist in the production of coal, I am prepared to give every encouragement through the regional organisation to arrangements for the utilisation of their services, where possible, in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mineworkers (Statistics)

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many employees were at work in coalmines on 1st January, 1942; and how many were so employed at the most recent date for which figures are available?

Major Lloyd George: The number of wage-earners on colliery books was, at 3rd January, 1942, 708,008, and on 12th September, 1942, 711,498.

Sir A. Gridley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many of the employees now at work in mines are, respectively, newcomers during 1942 and former miners released from the Services; and what proportion of the latter are coal face workers?

Major Lloyd George: Between 3rd January, 1942, and 19th September, 1942, 9,192 men released from the Army and the Royal Air Force and 9,765 men transferred from other industries returned to work in the coal mining industry. It is estimated that approximately 8,000 juveniles started work in the same period. I regret that the information requested in the last part of the Question is not avail-; able. The special schemes for the release of men from the Forces have related, however, only to underground workers.

Coal Output

Sir A. Gridley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the average output in the year 1939 per coal face worker and per employee at the mines of Great Britain, respectively; and the relative figures so far available for the current year?

Major Lloyd George: The average weekly output (allowing for the effect of holidays) in the year 1939 per coal-face worker was 14.73 tons, and per employee 6.08 tons; the figures for 1942, up to and including the week ending 12th September, are 14.48 tons and 5.71 tons respectively.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether any method, other than release of miners from the Forces, is expected to produce the extra coal required in the coming winter?

Major Lloyd George: It is not possible to deal with this question satisfactorily during Question Time, and I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement I hope to make during the forthcoming Debate.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how the present output of coal per coal-face worker per shift compares with the output a year ago?

Major Lloyd George: Both in August and September, 1941, the output per coalface worker per shift averaged 2.98 tons. In August this year, the average was 2.81 tons, and in the weeks in September for which figures are at present available—that is, the first two weeks—the output per shift worked at the face was 2.86 and 2.85 tons, respectively.

Absenteeism

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will give the figures of absenteeism for coal-getters, other underground workers and surface workers, respectively, before and since wages were raised?

Major Lloyd George: Owing to the incidence of holidays, it is not possible to compare the period immediate following the increase in wages with that which preceded it. A comparison of the rates of absenteeism in the five weeks ending 12th September with those for the five weeks preceding the Report of the Board of Investigation into Miners' Wages shows

that the percentage of absenteeism among face-workers has increased from 13.18 to 13.93 per cent.; among other underground workers from 10.25 to 10.85 per cent.; and among surface workers from 5.99 to 6.60 per cent.

Black-out Arrangements (Daylight)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can take steps to ensure more efficient use of daylight in black-out arrangements and save electricity and fuel?

Major Lloyd George: I am anxious to secure the substitution of removable black-out fittings for fixed ones wherever practicable; but the obstacle in the way of doing this generally is shortage both of labour and materials.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that there is great variety in the amount of ingenuity shown by firms in accomplishing this object? Could he not utilise propaganda, to get firms to use their brains as well as materials?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.

Coal Stack, Solihull

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) whether he will give an estimate of the percentage of coal converted into slack in the course of unloading and stacking at the Solihull reserve dump;
(2) what inquiries his representative made in the Solihull district with a view to obtaining the services of a coal merchant to unload and stack coal at the Solihull reserve dump before engaging the contractor who was, until the beginning of September, employed for that purpose?

Major Lloyd George: It is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the percentage of slack, in the emergency stock of coal at Solihull. Whilst it is recognised in the coal trade that in unloading coal from railway wagons and stacking it, a certain amount of breakage is unavoidable, I am satisfied that in the case of the reserve stock in Solihull, no abnormal breakage of coal has occurred. I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 8th September concerning the inquiries made in the Solihull district before a contractor was appointed to unload and stack coal consigned to the reserve dump.

Sir J. Mellor: As the local merchants have completed unloading at this dump and are now unloading at two other dumps without damage to coal or wagons, and are doing so at the Ministry's own price, will my right hon. and gallant Friend say why this arrangement could not have been made in the first instance?

Major Lloyd George: Because no merchant was prepared to do it in the first instance, at the price. They were all approached, and we had to fall back on the man who has done it.

Sir J. Mellor: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend suggest that all the possible merchants in the Solihull district were approached?

Major Lloyd George: That is my information; and, at the price at which we wanted it done, they would not do it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (ARMED RAIDS FROM EIRE).

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has made application to the Government of Eire for the arrest and extradition of the armed men who entered Northern Ireland from Eire at Culloville, County Armagh, on and September, and who, after wounding one constable and laying hands on another, returned in their lorry and motor-car to Eire; also of the armed men who on 4th September attacked the police barracks of the Royal Irish Constabulary at Belleek, County Fermanagh, on the border of Eire, with rifle fire and bombs; and also of the armed men who, on 5th September, ambushed and mortally wounded two constables at Clady, County Tyrone, 300 yards from the Border of Eire?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): No, Sir. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom deeply deplore these criminal outrages, and are anxious to give the Northern Ireland Government all help in their power to prevent or suppress them. They are, however, satisfied that representations to the Eire Government would not facilitate the task of the Government of Northern Ireland in dealing with such crimes. There is no evidence that the Eire authorities have not used every endeavour to prevent their

territory from being used in connection with such attacks.

Professor Savory: Is the hon. Member aware that the motor car and the lorry which had invaded Northern Ireland at Culloville, County Armagh, were afterwards found at Carrickmacross, County Monaghan, abandoned—evident proof that these raiders had returned to Eire?

Major Sir Ronald Ross: Is not the prevention of the invasion of United Kingdom territory by armed forces from outside a matter for the United Kingdom Government?

Professor Savory: Is the payment of compensation for the widows and children of the murdered constables to fall upon Northern Ireland?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: If the hon. Member will put down that Question, it will be replied to.

Sir R. Ross: Does the Under-Secretary say that attacks upon United Kingdom territory from the Dominions are not a matter for the Dominions Office?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: It is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government to take up.

Sir R. Ross: They have done so.

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he will inform the House as to how the tommy-guns and automatics reported to be of British manufacture came into the hands of the armed men who, on 2nd September, entered Northern Ireland from Eire, at Culloville, County Armagh, and who, after wounding a sergeant and laying hands on a constable, returned to Eire in their motor-car and lorry;
(2) whether his attention has been directed to the large supply dump of arms discovered on 31st August at Hannahstown, County Antrim; how many of the following articles found there were of British manufacture, namely, a number of Lewis guns, Thompson machine guns, Webley revolvers, barrels of potassium chlorate, explosive tear-gas containers, sticks of gelignite, Lee-Enfield service rifles, and thousands of rounds of ammunition; and whether he is in a position to inform the House how the above named articles fell into the hands of the Irish Republican Array?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I have been asked to reply. Inquiries have been made of the Northern Ireland authorities, and I understand that they have no information to enable them to confirm the report that the persons who attacked the police officers at Culloville were armed with weapons of British manufacture. As regards the weapons, anmiunition and explosives found at Hannahstown, it is known that weapons have in recent years been acquired by the I.R.A. from various sources, including countries overseas, but it is not possible to say from what sources the particular weapons and other things found in this Hannahstown store were acquired. It would not, on the information at present available, be justifiable to assume that weapons which can be identified as of British manufacture were in the possession of British authorities at the time when I.R.A. agents managed to secure possession of them.

Professor Savory: Is my hon. Friend aware of the grave concern felt in Northern Ireland owing to the fact that these weapons of British manufacture have fallen into the hands of the invaders of Northern Ireland? Further, is he aware that immense dumps have now been discovered and is there not grave fear of the terrible events of 1922—which, no doubt, my hon. Friend will remember—being again repeated?

Mr. Peake: I hope nothing will be suggested by my hon. Friend which will do anything to undermine confidence in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, upon whom the primary responsibility in this matter falls.

Sir R. Ross: Is it my hon. Friend's idea that the primary responsibility for the defence of the United Kingdom against armed attack from outside is a matter for the police?

Mr. Peake: We have been in communication with the Northern Ireland authorities, and they have assured us that this matter is well in hand and that they are perfectly capable of dealing with outrages of this character.

Sir R. Ross: Is it fair that the civil police should have to fight against people armed with machine guns coming in from neutral territory while the Army is standing by?

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that these are British machine guns out of which some Tories have been making a profit?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

Coupon Prosccutioins

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many employees of firms have been prosecuted for illegal transactions in coupons; how many such prosecutions have succeeded; whether any employees have been prosecated where all the financial benefits of such transactions have passed to the employer; and why all prosecutions of this nature are not directed exclusively against the employer?

The President of the Board of Trade Mr. Dalton): From 1st June, 1941, when clothes rationing was introduced, up to 15th September, 1942, 72 employees have been prosecuted for aiding and abetting offences committed by their employers against the Consumer Rationing Orders. Fifty-six of these persons have been convicted. It is not possible to say whether in these cases all the financial benefits from law-breaking have passed to the employers.

Mr. Davies: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman will inform his legal department that no prosecutions will lie against the employees in future where the benefit of these illegal transactions inures direct to the employer?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, I cannot give any such instruction. It is the duty of employees, as well as of employers, to keep the law. The heavier weight of fine falls upon the employer, but I shall give no instructions to my legal department which will diminish the efficacy of our measures to prevent such transactions.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Would it not strengthen the hand of the Board of Trade if the word "employer" in the Regulations were altered to "person"?

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps my hon. Friend will send me a note on that matter.

Family Articles (Prices)

Major Peto: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that profiteering on urgent family requirements such as perambulators, cots and


all kinds of baby clothes still continues unchecked; and whether he will investigate any cases brought to his notice with the object of restraining this exploitation of young married couples?

Mr. Dalton: The prices of all the articles referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend are subject to control either under the Prices of Goods Act, or under Orders that I have made. If he will bring to my notice any cases of alleged profiteering, I will have them investigated. It is also open to any member of the public to report such cases to the local price regulation committee.

Major Peto: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, might I also ask him whether that applies to secondhand goods?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

United Chemists Association, Limited (Prosecution).

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information in connection with the charges made against the company of chemists at Cheltenham on 15th September for exceeding the quota of cosmetics, toilet preparations, and fancy goods and what action he intends taking about the matter?

Mr. Dalton: For exceeding its quota the United Chemists Association, Limited, was fined £9,000 and ordered to pay 100 guineas costs. A director was fined £450, another director £75, and the secretary £150. Further, for recklessly furnishing false returns the company was fined £200 and the secretary £100. I do not intend to take any further action in the matter.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I take it that no ordinary employees at all were prosecuted in this case?

Mr. Dalton: I could not say that without notice.

Wirless Batteries

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced by people in country districts in obtaining renewals of batteries for wireless sets and also of the high prices charged in some cases; and what steps he is taking in the matter?

Mr. Dalton: Increased Service requirements have led to a temporary decrease in the number of high tension batteries for wireless sets available for the public but steps have been taken to secure a substantial increase in production and an improvement in distribution. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of the high prices charged, I will look into the matter.

Mr. Stewart: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication as to when it is expected that old age pensioners and others will be able to get this concession, which they cannot have now?

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend will appreciate that in time of war the Services have to come first, as a matter of necessity. But two new factories are coming into production very shortly; arrangements for increased production date back some little way, and I hope that we shall be getting full production early in the new year. But I repeat that my first duty is to the Services. The civilian population will none the less get some benefits from this increased production.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to assist the deaf to get batteries for their instruments?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (FOOD SUPPLIES)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether his attention has been called to the increasing mortality among Greek children through lack of milk; and will he take immediate steps to ensure that all possible facilities are made available to the Greek Government to arrange the necessary supplies?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): While exact statistics are not obtainable, I fear there can be no doubt that an abnormally high death rate prevails among Greek children. It is a reasonable inference that this is partly due to scarcity of milk and fats. Before the war Greece was substantially self-supporting in milk, and a very large exporter of olive oil. My information is that both these commodities have been requisitioned or otherwise acquired on a considerable scale by the occupying


authorities, who must, therefore, be held responsible for the present acute shortage. As regards the second part of the Question, my hon. and gallant Friend is aware that the Swedish scheme for the importation and distribution of wheat from Canada has only been in operation for a short time. I cannot give any fresh undertaking as to the future; at least, until the results of this experiment are known.

Sir T. Moore: In regard to milk, is it not true that this milk is available in South America, and that, owing to the fact that the British Government have refused to allow navicerts, it is impossible to get it to Greece?

Mr. Foot: No, Sir; statements in the Press to that effect are misleading. I understand that the supplies of milk are not yet available in South America, and we have received no applications for navicerts.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been called to statements by the President of the Greek Red Cross that 110,000 out of 300,000 children have died in Athens and Piraeus from starvation, malnutrition, and epidemics since the attack on Greece began, and that there is special need for milk for young children and babies?

Mr. Foot: I pointed out in my original answer that Greece was substantially self-supporting in milk; and that is also true of dairy products generally. We really cannot undertake to make good all the depredations of the Axis Powers.

Mr. Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether the ships carrying food relief to Greece are allowed to carry Red Cross markings; if not, whether they are clearly marked by other distinctive markings to remove any excuse for attack; and whether this relief service is now proceeding without interruption?

Mr. Foot: The Swedish relief ships taking wheat to Greece carry Red Cross markings, in addition to Swedish markings, on the hull and deck; they are also fully illuminated at night. This service is proceeding without interruption. The first three ships, which arrived at Piraeus at the end of August, left on 23rd September for the voyage back to Canada. Two more ships arrived at Piraeus on

18th September, and the last three of the ships in this service will be leaving Montreal very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

Chiropodists.

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War the reason for confining the appointment of Army chiropodists to the home establishment?

The Secretary of State for War (Sir J. Grigg): In the early part of the war regimental foot orderlies were provided for field units and were thought adequate, especially in view of the increasing mechanisation of the Army. In view, however, of experience which suggests that more skilled treatment may be desirable, I am now considering the attachment of fully qualified chiropodists to field medical units.

Dieppe Operations (Documents).

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, following the precedent of the last war in forbidding officers and men going into the front line from taking any written orders or papers with them, any such prohibition was given before the recent operations at Dieppe; whether it was enforced by search; and whether, in the interests of security, such prohibition and search will be enforced by officers commanding units in all similar operations?

Sir J. Grigg: This matter is the subject of investigation at the present time.

Home Guard

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a battalion commander of the Home Guard in the West of Scotland has requested members of his company to supply him with the names and addresses of persons in his area who, in their view, should be in the Home Guard; that he would, on receipt of same, write to those persons and, if they did not respond, he would submit the names to the Ministry of Labour; and if this practice is authorised by his Department?

Sir J. Grigg: I only received particulars of the unit in question from my hon. Friend on Saturday and have not yet been able to complete my inquiries. As soon as I have done so I will communicate with him.

Mr. McKinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend his inquiries to Worthing in the South of England and to Dunbartonshire where similar allegations are made?

Colonel Colville: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while the Minister of Labour is the authority to say whether a particular man should be directed into the Home Guard, it is frequently helpful to the local official of the Ministry of Labour to have suggestions from a battalion commander; and, without prejudging the issue in this case, will he see that fact is not interfered with, as, unfortunately, there are still a number of men who are not doing any form of national service?

Sir J. Grigg: My right hon. and gallant Friend is quite right. There is thorough local collaboration between the Ministry of Labour and the Home Guard authorities, as there must be if the arrangements are to work.

Mr. McKinlay: Does that necessitate spying upon other people's activities?

Sir J. Grigg: I am not prepared to prejudge the issue.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are many hundreds of volunteers in the London district anxious to join the Home Guard but not allowed to do so as the battalions have been limited to a maximum number; and whether, in view of the fact that the invasion leaflet states that a civilian can join the Home Guard, he will reconsider the organisation of the London district with a view to enabling volunteers to join?

Sir J. Grigg: I am aware that a certain number of volunteers cannot at present be accepted by two units of which my hon. Friend has given me particulars, because these have reached their full establishment. The difficulty is, however, purely a local one, for, as I have informed him, there are still many vacancies in almost all the Home Guard anti-aircraft units throughout the London district.

Mr. Strauss: Is it possible for men in this area—as many hundreds of them are anxious to do—to join some other area, or can the right hon. Gentleman remove the limit which has been imposed on this area so that these men can join?

Sir J. Grigg: I understand that "Many hundreds" is somewhat of an exaggeration. If the men want to join in that district they should put their names down and wait for vacancies, which are not very long in occurring.

Mr. Strauss: Can they join in another district?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not think so, but I will look into the matter.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the great expansion in the work and responsibilities of Home Guard adjutants since their pay and allowances were fixed at the rates for a regimental captain, he will reconsider granting to them adjutant's pay?

Sir J. Grigg: Officers are now specially appointed to Home Guard units for administrative and quartermaster duties previously undertaken by the adjutant. I cannot therefore agree that on the whole his remaining duties compare unfavourably with the duties at the time when the present: rates were fixed.

Sir J. Mellor: Generally speaking, are not Home Guard adjutants harder worked than other adjutants in the Home Forces?

Sir J. Grigg: That, I think, is a matter of opinion.

Damaged House, Sunderland (Compensation)

Mr. Storey: asked the Secretary of State for War the result of the inquiry he promised into the circumstances consequent to the requisitioning of 12, Cliffe Park, Sunderland, by the War Department?

Sir. J. Grigg: I have inquired into the circumstances of the case and have ascertained that this house was damaged by fire during its occupation by the military. The repair of the house for continued military occupation was not considered necessary and the house is no longer required for military use. It was derequisitioned accordingly; the owner's claim for compensation for damage under Section 2 (1, b) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, is being negotiated. I have no power to repair property not required by the military or to continue to hold such property on requisition.

Mr. Storey: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is grossly unfair,


having allowed the house to be burnt out during the occupation of the military, that he should then de-requisition it and refuse compensation for longer than such period during which it could be repaired unless authority could be obtained from the Ministry of Health; and should there not be full compensation until it could be put into a proper state of repair?

Sir J. Grigg: The compensation for the damage done will be paid, and the claim is at present being negotiated. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that this is one of the hard cases, and I have done my best to see if I could find any way around it, but I have not been able to do so. An unfortunate feature arises from the fact that, even after compensation is paid, it is not possible for the owner himself to put the building into repair. In that respect he is in the same position as a house-owner or anyone else whose house has been bombed and who cannot get permission from the Ministry of Works and Planning to repair the building.

Mr. Storey: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Voluntary Aid Detachments (Committee)

Mr. Storey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the committee to consider the position of Voluntary Aid Detachments in relation to the Services has yet been set up, and whether he will state the composition of the committee?

Sir J. Grigg: Arrangements for setting up the committee have just been completed. The agreed terms of reference are:
To consider the scope and method of employment of Mobile Voluntary Aid Detachments by, and their relationship to, the Services.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has agreed to be Chairman; and a representative has been nominated by each of the three Service Departments, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour and National Service, the British Red Cross Society, the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and the Council of County Territorial Associations.
In addition to these representatives of the Government Departments and organisations concerned the Chairman has

suggested that Mrs. J. L. Stocks, who, was a member of the recent Committee on Amenities and Welfare in' the Women's Services, should serve, in order that the Voluntary Aid Detachments Committee may have the benefit of the experience of that Committee. I am glad to say that Mrs. Stocks has accepted the invitation.

Cadet Corps

Sir Douglas Hacking: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the results of his review of the adequacy of existing Army cadet grants?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir, but I hope to be able to do so shortly.

Sir D. Hacking: In view of the fact that it is now four months since I drew the attention of my right hon. Friend to this matter, will he tell me when he can give me a decision?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot say beyond "shortly."

Sir William Davison: asked the Secretary of Sate for War what is the authorised establishment for Army cadets in Great Britain; and what is the total enrolment?

Sir J. Grigg: The authorised establishment of the Army Cadet Force is 175,000. 154,056 cadets had enrolled by the end of July of this year, and it is estimated that this number has now increased to about 172,000.

Sir W. Davison: In view of the fact that the enrolment of cadets outside London has not reached the establishment and that the small number of 4,500, which is the establishment in London, was reached some time ago, would it not be possible to enlarge the establishment for London owing to the fact that some of the establishments have not been reached in the country?

Sir J. Grigg: I think I told my hon. Friend before the Recess that that is precisely the question I am now considering.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are large numbers of youths in various constituencies who have been refused because the ceiling is very low, and is it not desirable that they should be given the opportunity of training and learning discipline?

Sir J. Grigg: The same answer applies to that Question. The whole question of the ceiling is at present under consideration but, as I said on the last occasion, it is no good making a vast increase in the ceiling if the uniform and arms cannot be provided.

Sir W. Davison: Is not the total of 4,500 an absurd ceiling for London, and will steps be taken to increase this number as soon as possible, so that it will no longer be necessary to refuse to enrol many boys anxious to become Army cadets?

Sir J. Lamb: What objection could there be to giving them a brassard and a hat?

Transport Services (Re-Organisation)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any statement to make on the reorganisation of Army transport services?

Sir J. Grigg: Since the answer is rather long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The basic organisation of the Royal Army Service Corps transport services with which the British Expeditionary Force went to France had been developed over a period of years and was based on accepted pre-war doctrines. Many different types of unit existed specially adapted in size and composition to the performance of specific tasks. This benefited training and individual efficiency at the expense of flexibility. The events of May and June, 1940, showed that this system was imperfectly adapted to modem mechanised warfare, but the success of the Royal Army Service Corps transport services in the East African and first Libyan campaigns to some extent discounted the arguments for disturbing an organisation, which had not in itself failed in France and had been successful beyond expectation elsewhere. Early in 1941, however, it became clear that the progress and development of tactical and strategical technique, as well as of new weapons, would in future campaigns call for a vastly more flexible organisation in the road transport services of the Army. The increase in the number and size of weapons then in process of design and development made it apparent that Royal Army Service Corps Transport Echelons must expect a steady increase

in their load as the volume of fire power in the hands of Infantry, Artillery and Armoured units grew.

To meet these needs a completely new organisation for the road transport services of the Field Army was developed.

Its principles were—that all road Transport Companies should be identical in internal organisation and be composed of standard sub units: that all transport units should be interchangeable for purely transport tasks: to permit "specialist" functions to be carried out, small sub units of "specialist personnel" appropriate to the tasks required should be added to what would otherwise be General Transport Companies: that no vehicles of any Transport Company should be specifically allotted for the carriage of a particular nature of commodity, or the service of a particular unit, but all vehicles should be operated on a pool basis.

This new organisation was designed, developed and applied throughout the Field Army at home with great rapidity and success and has since been introduced in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Among the effects of this reorganisation have been—

A saving in the number of personnel required to operate and maintain a given number of vehicles.

A saving in the number of load carrying vehicles required to maintain a Major Force, due to the application of the pooling system.

A very great simplification of the machinery for raising, training and equipping new units, or converting units from one task to another.

Accommodation.

Mr. J. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will see that soldiers are, wherever possible, given as good accommodation as airmen?

Sir J. Grigg: I am not sure whether the hon. Member is referring to a particular difference in the scales of accommodation for the Army and for the Royal Air Force. The general standard is now broadly similar for both Services, but there is at present in certain types of construction a somewhat larger Royal Air Force allowance for sleeping accommodation, which, as my right hon. Friend has satisfied me, is necessary on operational and other grounds. The hon. Member will


also appreciate that much of the accommodation already built for the Royal Air Force is of a standard which is not at present applicable to new construction for either Service.

Mr. Dugdale: Why do soldiers have to sleep on paliasses while airmen sleep on beds?

Sir W. Davison: Why, do Italian prisoners sleep on beds too?

War-Time Promotions

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he intends to make any change in the present system of granting acting and temporary rank in the Army?

Sir D. Hacking: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the almost universal dissatisfaction amongst officers and other ranks in the Army in respect of the granting of acting and temporary ranks; and whether, in order to put an end to the uncertainty and hardship inseparable from the present system, he will abolish the temporary rank of officers and reduce the length of qualifying periods for substantive ranks of officers and non-commissioned officers?

Sir J. Grigg: I am at present considering the possibility of making certain amendments in the conditions governing war-time promotions with the object of giving to officers somewhat greater security against loss of rank through no fault of their own.

Mr. Hutchinson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether it would be possible for him to make a statement on this matter before very long?

Sir J. Grigg: All I can say about that is that I hope so, but, of course, other Departments are concerned in it and a certain amount of inter-departmental discussion is required.

Sir R. Ross: Will the contemplated regulations be made restrospective?

Sir J. Grigg: I think we had better wait and see what the regulations are in fact going to be.

Captain Crowder: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the strong feeling in this House and in the Army that some-

thing should be done about this matter as quickly as possible?

Administration (Standing Committee).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War how many times the Standing Committee on Army Administration have met during the past 12 months and who are the present members?

Sir J. Grigg: The Standing Committee on Army Administration has met on two occasions in the past 12 months, and is meeting again ton 1st October. I will send my hon. Friend a list showing the present composition of the Committee.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it not quite evident from the reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given that this Committee, and probably many others too, exist only in name and have no real functions unless an hon. Member puts a Question on the Order Paper?

Sir J. Grigg: It is not in the least so. The Committee, in the course of its deliberations, made recommendations for other machinery to carry on, in a day-today manner, things which it thought ought to be done. The Committee has created machinery which makes frequent meetings unnecessary.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some information as to what are the reconunendations which have meant the superseding of this Committee?

Sir J. Grigg: My predecessor in office, on at least one occasion, if not more, has given the House the information.

Major C. S. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend publish the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Have these committees executive authority?

Sir J. Grigg: Some have and some are advisory.

Family Allowance.

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he intends to review the existing arrangements under which additional marriage allowance of 6d. per day is paid to service men's wives within the London postal area, having regard to the fact that this area no longer corresponds with the urban area of Greater London, within which higher rents prevail?

Sir J. Grigg: It is not possible to vary the rates of family allowance according to the cost of living in a particular locality, and War Service Grants have been instituted to supplement family allowance in cases where families have to pay specially high rents or meet other special expenses. It is admitted that the issue of the additional allowance referred to presents anomalies, but any extension of the area in which it is issued would equally present anomalies and it is not therefore proposed to extend the scope of the present regulation.

Oral Answers to Questions — MADAGASCAR (OPERATIONS)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information regarding the position in Madagascar?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The success of the initial landings and the fact that they were accomplished with only the lightest casualties to both sides were due in great measure to the efficiency of the Royal Navy and the speed with which they ferried the troops on to the beaches at the right time.
After British troops had secured the port of Majunga, motorised units of the King's African Rifles disembarked for their advance on the capital 300 miles to the south. Their first objective was the 1,600 feet long suspension bridge over the Betsiboka river, 140 miles from Majunga. They reached this point at 9.30 a.m. on the second day and found that the Vichy French had cut the suspension cables. Although the centre span had collapsed into the water, the infantry crossed and secured a bridgehead against slight opposition. Very shortly afterwards, the advance on the capital was resumed.
On 16th September Monsieur Annet, the Vichy French Governor of the island, broadcast an appeal for an armistice. One of our planes was sent to Tananarive to bring his plenipotentiaries to Majunga, where Lieut.-General Sir William Piatt received them on the 17th. The French were unable to accept our terms, however, and the delegates left the next morning. Earlier on that same morning, our seaborne forces appeared off the east coast port of Tamatave and called upon the town to surrender. The commandant refused and fired on our envoys, but after

a brief bombardment by His Majesty's ships, the white flag was hoisted over the town at 8 a.m. Our troops landed without incident and pursued the retiring French forces to Brickaville, the principal town on the railway from Tamatave and the capital, which they captured on the 19th.
At this time, our column from Majunga had reached a point some 40 miles north of Tananarive and here they met their first serious opposition. This was overcome in two sharp engagements on the 21st and 22nd, and our Forces entered the capital at midday on the 23rd. They were received with strong demonstrations of good will and even enthusiasm. Operations against the remaining Vichy French forces south of the capital are proceeding. Resistance in the northern part of the island between Diego Suarez and Majunga has collapsed, and all is now quiet in this area.
I should mention that I received news this morning that Tulear, an important port in the southern portion of the island, surrendered to an ultimatum without any bombardment being necessary.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the pleasant feature of this operation, namely, the small number of casualties, is due to the fact that the French offered very little armed resistance?

The Prime Minister: I think the resistance was mainly symbolic.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACTS OF GALLANTRY (POSTHUMOUS AWARDS).

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Prime Minister whether, as the only decorations that can be given posthumously are the Victoria Cross and the George Cross, he will recommend to His Majesty an extension of the range of posthumous awards in order that the many acts of gallantry which result in death but do not justify the two decorations mentioned may be suitably honoured?

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 20th May last to my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. Thomas: Although I cannot at this moment recollect the reply, will the right


hon. Gentleman consider giving posthumous decorations to persons mentioned in despatches, at least in cases where they deserve it?

The Prime Minister: I have thought a good deal about this, and I know it is being carefully studied, but hitherto opinion has been against multiplying posthumous decorations.

Sir W. Davison: In view of recent events, is it not possible for the Committee which has been giving careful consideration to this matter to reconsider it?

The Prime Minister: I will consider that.

Sir W. Davison: Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (OFFENSIVE OPERATIONS).

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the period of offensive operations by the United Nations is now approaching and that it is of vital importance not to give the enemy prior information as to how, when, or where any attack is to take place, he will take steps to impress upon all persons with access to inside information, the need to exercise greater restraint than hitherto in any public statements or published speculation about Second Front possibilities?

The Prime Minister: I welcome this opportunity of again emphasising the un-desirability of public statements or speculations as to the time and place of future Allied offensive operations, even though such statements or speculations are based on inferences, and not as my hon. and gallant Friend's Question would seem to imply, on inside information.

Captain Macdonald: Will my right hon. Friend convey this to Mr. Wendell Willkie?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR PLANNING

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether it is now proposed to adopt and put into effect the recommendations in the Report of the Uthwatt Committee and the Committee on Land Utilisation in Rural Areas; and when

legislation will be introduced setting up a central planning authority?

The Prime Minister: These Reports cover a very wide field, on which consultation will be necessary with several Government Departments. In view of the heavy responsibilities now falling on my noble Friend the Minister of Works and Planning, I have arranged that my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster-General, who is already responsible for co-ordinating the activities of Departments in this field, should undertake an examination of these Reports and of other proposals for amending planning legislation. No change is involved in the current administration of the Town and Country Planning Acts, but the Paymaster-General will be able to call upon the Planning Staff of the Ministry of Works and Planning, as well as on the other Departments concerned, for such assistance and advice as he may find necessary. I am confident that he will receive valuable help from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss), Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can my right hon. Friend indicate whether it is the Government's intention fairly soon to give the House an opportunity of discussing either of these Reports?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter which might well find its place in the Debate on the Address which will precede the future Session of Parliament.

Mr. Kirkwood: Seeing that this is a very complicated affair, according to the Prime Minister's reply to the original Question, may I ask him whether, in order to obviate all that trouble, the time has not arrived when he will bring in legislation to nationalise the land, which would give the greatest impetus to the war effort?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROME (BOMBING)

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Prime Minister why we have not bombed Rome?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to previous statements on this subject.

Captain Cunmingham-Reid: Has the fact that we have not yet bombed this Nazi capital anything to do with Catholic susceptibilities?

The Prime Minister: I think my answer is conclusive.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Would not the bombing of Rome unite Italians and not split them?

The Prime Minister: I cannot answer hypothetical questions.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are no military objectives in Rome?

The Prime Minister: I certainly could not accept any limiting views.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (ALLIED ATTACKS)

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Prime Minister how many times since Italy entered the war have we attacked military targets on the mainland of Italy; and whether any attack has as yet been made upon the important hydroelectric installations situated in Northern Italy?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the Question is that military targets on the mainland of Italy have been attacked 104 times by the Royal Air Force. In addition, there have been a number of naval bombardments;, including that of Genoa on 9th February, 1941, and on the night of 10th–11th February, 1941, as the House will remember, British parachute troops were landed in Southern Italy. The answer to the second part is "No, Sir."

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S SERVICES (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Prime Minister how many of the recommendations made in the report on the welfare of the three Women's Services have so far been accepted by the Service Departments; and how many are now in operation?

The Prime Minister: The majority of the Committee's recommendations are, I understand, likely to be partly or wholly acceptable to the Service Departments,

and many of them are already in operation. Since, however, discussion within and between the Departments on a number of points is not yet complete, I am unable to give precise figures.

Mrs. Keir: In view of the near approach of winter, will my right hon. Friend expedite the consideration of all those recommendations?

The Prime Minister: I have not yet become convinced that any special process of expedition has become necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED WAR PLANNING

Mr. David Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he can assure the House that there is now no lack of harmony and reciprocity in Allied war planning, or any lack of machinery to maintain the same?

The Prime Minister: Reciprocity cannot be accepted as a principle, when all concerned should do their utmost. Harmony, on the other hand, is our constant aim, and there is certainly no lack of machinery to achieve it.

Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is necessary to give those assurances in certain quarters of the country, and probably will be necessary at the termination of the war?

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN TROOPS (COLOUR DISCRIMINATION)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that an unfortunate result of the presence here of American Forces has been the introduction in some parts of Britain of discrimination against negro troops; and whether he will make friendly representations to the American military authorities asking them to instruct their men that the colour bar is not a custom of this country and that its non-observance by British troops or civilians should be regarded with equanimity?

The Prime Minister: The Question is certainly unfortunate. I am hopeful that without any action on my part the points of view of all concerned will be mutually understood and respected.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has already been aired to some extent, and, therefore,


it seems wiser to air it properly and to handle this very serious problem firmly and constructively than to pretend it does not exist?

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Information, in an article in one of the newspapers, has expressed himself very definitely on this subject and is apparently opposed to any colour discrimination?

The Prime Minister: This is not on the point of merits, but on the point of representations being made by me.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received a letter, a copy of which I have sent to him, from a number of serving men informing me that an officer has given them a lecture advising them on the necessity for discrimination in connection with negroes who are in London?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT NAVY (AWARDS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Prime Minister why Merchant Navy officers and men are appointed to the Civil Division of the Order of the British Empire for gallantry in action against the enemy while Naval officers are recommended for appointment to the Military Division for office work on shore; and whether he will reconsider the decision to exclude the Merchant Navy from the Military Division?

The Prime Minister: As I informed my hon. Friend on 8th September, Naval awards are now available for the Merchant Navy for gallantry in action with the enemy. The conditions for appointment to the Order of the British Empire in the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy are similar, whether the recommendation is made for services at sea or on shore and whether for bravery not in the face of the enemy or for good service. There is no difference in standard between the Military and Civil Divisions, that is entirely a matter of occupation. It is not proposed to vary the long-standing custom that the appointments of civilians shall be in the Civil Division and of military personnel in the Military Division of the Order.

Mr. Keeling: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the Merchant Navy is in fact one of the Fighting Services, and is it not very confusing to the public that a

Merchant sailor who has fought the enemy gallantly should wear the civil ribbon while a Naval sailor who merely sits on a chair efficiently should wear the military ribbon?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the suggestion that Naval officers merely sit on chairs while the merchant seamen engage the full brunt of the enemy. On the contrary, I think both Services take the rough with the smooth.

Mr. Keeling: I made no such suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — VICHY GOVERNMENT

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement defining our attitude towards the Vichy Government in view of Laval's recent policy of brutality and treachery?

The Prime Minister: I have no fresh statement to make on this subject.

Sir T. Moore: Would it not be a comfort and an encouragement to our friends in France if a categorical denunciation of this traitor could be made with the authority of my right hon. Friend?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I have rather exhausted the possibilities of the English language.

Oral Answers to Questions — BATTLE OF BRITAIN (COMMEMORATION)

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend that 15th September each year be officially designated as Air Trafalgar Day, or such appropriate name, to commemorate the deeds of the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain?

The Prime Minister: I am not inclined at this stage of the war to make the particular recommendation of the kind suggested by the hon. Member. His Majesty's Government do not, of course, wish to discourage any spontaneous form of commemoration or ceremony to mark such anniversaries.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION

Mr. Mander: asked the Paymaster-General whether he is now prepared to make a statement with reference to the


work of his Department dealing with post-war reconstruction; the number and nature of inquiries instituted; and the progress made?

The Paymaster-General (Sir William Jowitt): If there is any general desire that such a statement should be made, I am prepared to make one on a convenient occasion.

Mr. Mander: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend going to answer the rest of the Question?

Sir W. Jowitt: I think we had better await the statement if one is proposed to be made.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to make a statement, because I think it would be the desire of the House that he should make one very soon?

Sir W. Jowitt: I have already said I am prepared to make a statement on a suitable occasion.

Mr. Mander: If representations are made through the usual channels, may I take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite prepared to initiate a Debate?

Sir W. Jowitt: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Service Pay and Allowances

Colonel Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the White Paper on the Pay and Allowances of the Armed Forces was drawn up in a form which was open to question on the ground of the suppression of material facts; and what steps he has taken to have the author of the document appropriately dealt with?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): This Paper was presented by the Government, who are themselves responsible for it. My hon. and gallant Friend is entitled to criticise the Paper or the Government who issued it, but is not entitled to make the suggestion implicit in the last part of the Question. Neither can the allegation contained in the first part be accepted.

Colonel Medlicott: Is the Chancellor aware that the White Paper was con-

demned in all parts of the House, and that both as to its form and contents fell far below the high standard which we expect in an official publication?

Sir K. Wood: I understand that in the course of the Debate my hon. and gallant Friend suggested something should be done to the officials, but that is not the usual practice.

Mr. Stephen: Would not the best way to deal with this matter be to get rid of the Government responsible?

Wages and Prices (Stabilisation Policy).

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the claims recently put forward by the engineers for increases in wages amounting to £100,000,000 a year; and whether, in view of the fact that this sum would in effect have to be borne directly or indirectly by the Exchequer, he will make it clear now to both sides in the industry that the Exchequer is not in a position to find that money required to satisfy this or any similar claims?
(2) whether, in view of President Roosevelt's decision to place ceilings on wages and farm prices in order to avoid inflation, he will take steps to bring the economic policy of this country into line with that of the United States of America by formulating and bringing into operation a national wages policy?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the rising spiral of wages and prices during the period since the publication of the White Paper on Price Stabilisation and Industrial Policy; and whether any steps are being taken by the Government, in association with the Trades Union Congress, to put a brake upon this tendency in order to avoid further inflation with consequent damage to the war effort and lowering of the standard of living of the people?

Sir A. Southby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the growing demand for increased wages and salaries and the consequent effect upon the economic stability of the country, and, having regard to the disparity between the rewards now paid in some war industries and the pay of the Forces, he will take steps to stabilise


wages and salaries for the period of the war; and whether he will give an assurance that arrangements will be made for a Debate in the House on this subject before any policy is settled?

Sir K. Wood: The Government consider that the stabilisation policy set out in the White Paper of July, 1941, has proved effective hitherto in checking inflation. They would desire to continue to rely on those concerned with wage negotiations in industry, and on arbitration tribunals, to handle claims for wage alterations with a full sense of the responsibility which they share for safeguarding national, and not merely sectional, interests. If that sense of responsibility were to break down, the price stabilisation policy, which has hitherto been successfully maintained, would become impossible and the Government would have to reconsider their policy. I understand that the engineering wage claim, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. N. Bower) refers, has not yet been considered by the appropriate joint bodies in the industry. I have as yet no precise information as to the measures to be adopted in the United States. If there is a general desire for a Debate on this subject the question can be raised through the usual channels.

Mr. Stewart: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer answer that part of my Question which asks:
whether any steps are being taken by the Government, in association with the Trades Union Congress, to put a brake upon this tendency in order to avoid further inflation?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I have nothing to add to my statement.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that the employer in the munition industry has nothing whatsoever to do with settling wages, and that he merely acts as an agent for the Government in paying out money to his men? It is the Government's fault entirely.

Sir A. Southby: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer appreciate that the growing demand for increased wages and the granting of them to people employed in certain industries makes the Government's treatment of men in the Services appear to be even more shabby than it actually is?

Mr. Shinwell: How is it possible to create inflation, however high the ceiling of wages may be, if those who receive wages have no means whereby they can spend them?

Sir K. Wood: I think we had better deal with that in the course of the Debate.

National Savings Certificates

Mr. Reakes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now prepared to encourage the small savers by allowing them to purchase up to 1,000 savings certificates, thus removing the present limitation to a purchase of 500 certificates?

Sir K. Wood: I am considering this matter and hope to announce my decision shortly.

Hay-Boxes (Purchase Tax)

Mr. Isaacs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the interest of the campaign for economy in fuel, he will consider that hay-boxes on sale should be free from Purchase Tax thereby encouraging people to make use of this alternative method of cooking?

Sir K. Wood: While the use of hay-boxes is most desirable at the present time, I understand that there are many other domestic appliances which may be claimed to secure economy in fuel consumption. There is, however, nothing to suggest that their use has been materially restricted by the incidence of the tax, and I am afraid I cannot see my way to grant special relief for such appliances on that ground.

Mr. Isaacs: As the Government are spending huge sums of money in their economy campaign, would it not be economical to give facilities so that these things can be bought without tax, thereby making it possible to save in other directions?

Sir K. Wood: I am advised that it would make very little or no difference.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the Business of the House for the next series of Sitting Days? As I imagine a large number of people will wish to speak in the coal Debate, may I also ask whether it will be possible to extend the time for that Debate?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): As already announced, we propose to-day to take the Second Reading of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Amendment Bill [Lords] and of the Greenwich Hospital Bill [Lords]. These Bills have been before the House for some time, and, if there is no objection, we also propose to ask the House to take the Committee and remaining stages at to-day's Sitting.
On the next Sitting Day, after the Second Reading of the Prolongation of Parliament Bill and of the Local Elections and Register of Electors Bill, we shall ask the House to approve a Motion for the appointment of an additional Judge.
If it is the general wish of the House, the Government are prepared to allocate a Second day for the Coal debate, namely, the First Sitting day of the next Series of Sittings which will probably be more convenient than suspending the Rule.

PRODUCTION (SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS).

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): A number of Questions have been tabled during the Recess on the subject of the three Scientific Advisers recently appointed to my staff. I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if I make a brief statement on the powers and duties which, in agreement with my colleagues, they have been given.
First, I should like to make it clear that I have not created a new Scientific Board. There appears to be some misconception about this. The three Scientific Advisers have been appointed as whole-time members of my staff and will work under the supervision of the Lord Privy Seal acting on my behalf. Their field of activity will be co-extensive with that over which I exercise my powers; they will work together or individually according to the nature of problems under investigation. Their advice and recommendations will normally be presented to me through the Lord Privy Seal; it will, of course be for me to bring their advice and recommendations to the notice of the War Cabinet as may be necessary.
These appointments have been made with a view to completing the existing organisation for scientific research and development in the field of production, and will provide the further measure of co-

ordination which the creation of a Ministry of Production has now rendered possible under my direction. The Scientific Advisers will advise me on existing organisations for scientific research activities in any case in which it appears to them that the existing arrangements are deficient or inadequate. They may act for me with the technical side of any service or other department engaged in scientific work which bears on the general field for which I am responsible. I shall call upon them, from time to time, to make reports upon particular matters, but in addition, they may initiate inquiries into any matters within their field. They will, of course, be provided with adequate technical and other staff.
The Scientific Advisers may obtain through the head of the department or establishment concerned or, in the case of certain highly secret information as may be approved between myself and the Minister concerned, any information relevant to the execution of their duties. The Scientific Advisers will, of course, not interfere with the work which is being done by the very large and numerous scientific and technical staffs of departments or, with that of any existing inter-departmental organisation. They fully appreciate the importance of this. With these arrangements I feel that they will have full scope for their work which will be of great importance, and enable them to make a note-worthy contribution to the development of scientific and technical research in the field of production.

Mr. Shinwell: How will this new arrangement affect the functions of the Lord President of the Council, who is ordinarily responsible for matters of scientific research?

Mr. Lyttelton: The functions of the Lord President of the Council are not affected by the arrangement.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that there will be two Ministers dealing with scientific matters? Is there to be no co-ordination there?

Mr. Lyttelton: The Lord President's functions remain the same. The Lord Privy Seal is helping me in the matter, but I am responsible in the field of production for the work of these three scientists.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not this an appropriate moment for co-ordination? Should we not have someone to take complete charge of scientific research matters?

Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that this Department will have power to make use of the very considerable research possibilities which exist in the actual production firms themselves, and not have a separation between theory and practice?

Mr. Ivor Thomas: What will be the relation of this panel of advisers with the Scientific Advisory Committee presided over by the President of the Board of Education, and also with Lord Cherwell's organisation?

Mr. Lyttelton: He has no organisation. The Scientific Advisory Committee and the Engineering Advisory Committee advise the Government on general points, whereas the three scientists who have been appointed are whole-time members of my staff.

Mr. Shinwell: May I press the matter of co-ordination? The Lord President of the Council is responsible for the Scientific Research Advisory Committee, and one deals with the subject of the treatment of coal. Does not production refer to coal? That matter comes within his function. Would it not be much better, instead of dividing the functions between two or three Ministers, to have one in liaison with the various Departments dealing with the matter?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think it would be thoroughly unsound to have one Minister attempting to co-ordinate these activities. The closest liaison exists between them, and the ultimate co-ordination must be done by the War Cabinet.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is not the need for a Central Scientific and Technical Board such as is demanded by at least 120 Members of the House?

Mr. Woodburn: May I have an answer to my Question, whether this Committee would have authority to make use of the scientific research possibilities of production firms throughout the country?

Mr. Lyttelton: Certainly, I have the fullest powers in the matter already.

Orders of the Day — COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It is, I think, unnecessary to detail the main policy and provisions embodied in the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act and the amendments which have been made to it from time to time. This Bill deals with two short, narrow, technical and wholly uncontroversial points. In the original Act the persons entitled to the benefit of its provisions were described in general words as the persons liable to pay the debt or perform the obligation which was sought to be enforced. Three cases have come before the courts in which it has been held, and has become clear, that those general words do not cover persons who should be covered under the general policy of the Act. The first arose under a mortgage transaction. A man borrows money on mortgage and builds a house with it. He subsequently sells the house subject to the mortgage. Although the person to whom he sells it is in the house and is the person who will be turned out if proceedings are taken, and although he will be liable to indentify his vendor if the vendor is called upon under a personal covenant, he will not usually


have made himself personally liable to the mortgagee to make the payments, and it was therefore held that the general words intended to cover all cases did not cover him. Another case is where, say, a father mortgages property to secure a debt not of his own but of his son or his wife. He does not come within these words. The third case is when the property vests in the trustee in bankruptcy. He is not, as trustee, liable to perform the obligation, though it might be right that the property should have the protection of the Act.
We therefore propose to introduce general words empowering the courts to protect anyone who may have an interest in the property which clearly should entitle him to protection. It is a little difficult to be certain how these cases will arise, and we do not want to bring about a situation in which costs would be increased by the creditor having to serve notice on a variety of persons who might be interested, and therefore under Sub-section (2), having laid down the general principle, we provide for rules to be made so that the matter can be kept within the proper compass, and it is possible that some further case might arise which has not been provided for. I think the principle is plain and clear. The general words used do not cover certain special circumstances which should be within the Act, and we propose to remedy the matter by Clause 1. There is a purely drafting Amendment down to make it quite clear that that dovetails in with the Mortgages (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1940. This matter has now become rather a jigsaw puzzle, as anyone who has had to deal with these cases will realise, and we hope, when this Bill is passed, to consolidate all these complicated provisions.
The second point is a small improvement designed to save costs. Under the original Act, if a mortgagee desired to exercise the remedy of foreclosure, he had to get leave before he started, but, if he simply required to get possession of the mortgaged property, he could start proceedings for possession without leave. He got his judgment for possession—there was generally no answer—and it was only at that stage that the question arose, "Is this a case where the occupier of the mortgaged property ought to have protection under the Act?" That really meant in

many cases that unnecessary steps had to be taken and as a result costs accumulated. These provisions which are somewhat complicated, if one tries to follow them in the verbal Amendments, fitting into the original Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts and Liabilities (War-time Adjustment) Act simply effect this—that if the mortgagee wants to get possession, he has to get leave before he begins so that at that stage, instead of at the time when he has got his judgment, the question of whether there is any Courts (Emergency Powers) Act defence to the exercise of his rights can be investigated. That is really the whole sum and substance of this Bill. It makes two obviously desirable amendments in the scheme and I hope that, if and when it becomes law, we shall be able to consolidate this code into one Act.

Major Milner: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has explained the provisions of the Bill with his usual lucidity, and I think this is one of those occasions on which one can heartily and fully congratulate the Government on the step which they are taking. The matters dealt with in the Bill are not, perhaps, of great general importance, but they are of importance to the persons concerned, and it is noteworthy that the Government have taken cognisance of recent decisions and in this Bill propose to alter the law so as to meet difficulties which have arisen. This is, I think, a remarkable instance of the flexibility and speed with which this sort of thing can be done where it is obvious that in the original Act of Parliament certain defects or omissions due to nobody's fault have been shown by experience to exist. The Government are to be congratulated on keeping in touch with the trend of decisions and on promptly bringing legislation before the House in order to remedy faults or omissions which have been disclosed.

Clause 1 of the Bill would appear to be extremely wide, in that it proposes that the appropriate court may treat any person appearing to the court to be affected, as if he were the person liable to pay the mortgage money, etc. Those are extremely wide words which do not, as far as my knowledge goes, appear in any similar Act of Parliament. I note, however, that in Sub-section (2) there are limiting factors and apparently in the last


resort the court may decide on the persons who are to be made parties to the application. If that Sub-section did, not appear in the Bill, I should have regarded the words of the first Sub-section as being very wide indeed.

The second object of the Bill would appear to be a very proper one and one on which we lawyers can agree. It is the saving of costs. At present, as the Attorney-General has explained, when action is taken for recovery of possession by a mortgagee, considerable costs may be incurred before the court has to decide on the propriety, having regard to the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, of giving the necessary protection. As I understand it, the Bill assimilates the procedure under that form of action with the procedure followed in the case of an action for foreclosure, and provides that the leave of the court has to be given, in the first instance, before substantial costs have been incurred. It appears to me, as I hope it will appear to the House, that we may very properly pass this Bill through all its stages as we have been asked to do by the Lord Privy Seal, and I congratulate the Government on having brought it before the House. I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is very desirable that these Acts of Parliament, dealing as they do with matters principally arising during the war and of considerable importance to all those affected, should be put into such a form, as far as possible, that the man in the street will be able to understand and follow them. At present it is extremely difficult even for a lawyer, having regard to the numerous Acts of Parliament which exist, and the aumcrous amendments of the law which have been made, to find out the precise state of the law relating to some of these matters to-day. If, therefore, these statutory enactments can be consolidated so much the better and I hope that such consolidations may take place, not only in regard to this matter, but in regard to many others, such as the Rents Acts, which are extremely difficult to follow and understand in their present form.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Young.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1—(Power to grant relief in respect of mortgaged property.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end, to insert:
or, as the context may require, as if he were the mortgagor.
This is a drafting Amendment which I have already explained.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2—(Amendments of s. 1 of Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, and s, 26 of Liabilities (War-time Adjustment) Act, 1941.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 10, after "and'", insert:
in paragraph (d) of the proviso to that subsection ".—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. George Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".
The House is seldom troubled with matters concerning Greenwich Hospital, and as the Bill does not raise any matters of controversy, I trust that little time will be required to get it through all its stages. The Bill is concerned, not with the main functions of Greenwich Hospital or its resources, but with the removal of certain administrative difficulties, some of which have recently come to light. The difficulties in themselves do not appear to be of much importance, but if they are not removed, they will cause hardship to the employees of Greenwich Hospital and its working and they cannot be removed except by legislation.
The Bill proposes to amend the Greenwich Hospital Acts of 1865 and 1821 in


four respects. The first of these is to extend to the staff of Greenwich Hospital certain benefits conferred upon Civil servants by the Superannuation Acts of 1887 and 1935. The Superannuation Act, 1935, among other provisions, granted to retiring Civil servants the option of allocating part of their pensions to their wives or dependants, and the Superannuation Act, 1887, had previously authorised the payment without probate to the representatives of deceased Civil servants of sums not exceeding £100 due to the latter in respect of salaries, wages, pensions or other pecuniary benefits. The Board of Admiralty have been advised that the wording of the Greenwich Hospital Acts precludes the Admiralty from extending to the staff of Greenwich Hospital these rights and privileges. No case of the kind has yet arisen, but soon various employees of the Hospital will reach the retiring age, and as it is the policy and practice of the Admiralty to assimilate the conditions of employment in the Hospital to those in force in the Civil Service and other Government staffs, we are anxious to bring in the legislation which is now proposed.
The second object aims at removing any doubt as to the powers of the Board of Admiralty, as trustees of Greenwich Hospital, to contribute towards the payment by other authorities or persons of pensions or pecuniary benefits to certain classes of former employees of Greenwich Hospital Department, such as teachers or nurses, or to their legal representatives the rates of benefit in accordance with the special superannunation schemes under which they serve. The third object is to enable the Board of Admiralty at their discretion to grant superannuation benefits, not merely as at present to officers and clerks of Greenwich Hospital, but to any other persons employed by Greenwich Hospital, such as industrial workpeople. The fourth object is to abolish the procedure under which an Order in Council must be obtained before a new scale of salary for an officer of the Department can be authorised or an existing scale altered.
It will be observed that the powers which this Bill seeks to confer on the Admiralty are couched in very general terms; that is in accordance with the previous Greenwich Hospital Acts. It is, however,

the intention of the Board of Admiralty to administer these in strict accordance with the provisions of the Superannuation Acts, the Teachers' Superannuation Acts, or the relevant superannuation schemes, and their general practice in dealing with employees performing similar duties in other Departments and establishments under their control. The Bill imposes no charge on public funds and relatively few persons are involved.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Such little anxiety as I have about this proper Bill is only concerned with the fact that by the changes which are proposed it may possibly compromise or imperil the allocation of funds to the original purposes for which the funds were set up. The original purposes were for the officers, seamen and marines of the Royal Navy. I am anxious that this shall be carefully considered. I notice that the Admiralty are asking that they may make necessary changes in future without an Order in Council. I have always understood that an Order in Council was a check and a means by which publicity could be directed upon any alterations that were to be made, and I am sorry that it is to be eliminated in future. I desire to ask a few questions on the Committee stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Young.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of powers to grant pensions to persons employed for the purposes of Greenwich Hospital.)

Motion made, and Questions proposed,

"That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Section 16 of the Act of 1865 enacted that annuities could be paid to clerks, etc., who were employed by Greenwich Hospital if they were removed. I understand from paragraph (1, a) of Clause 1 of this Bill that the Admiralty think it desirable to extend the principle of giving pecuniary benefits, pensions, etc., to other persons beyond what the 1865 Act allowed for. I am only concerned to ask how far that will be allowed to go. The expenditure for


Greenwich Hospital amounts to £190,000 a year, and of that sum something like £90,000 is expended on pensions, annuities and grants, almost entirely for officers, seamen and marines. I only want an assurance from the Admiralty that the principle of extending the pecuniary benefits should not go so far as to imperil the original rights of the officers and men of the Royal Navy.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the proposals in this Bill are merely to bring into line and coordinate the administrative provisions for dealing with the staff and employees of the hospital. They do not in any way prejudice the rights of the men in the Services about whom my hon. and gallant Friend is concerned.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: The staff and the civil employees of Greenwich Hospital have been very largely increased of late years since they removed from Greenwich. Do I understand that the staff, which is a very big one and on which large sums are spent, are not to be included in the possibility of getting remuneration and annuities from the funds of Greenwich Hospital?

The Solicitor-General: If I may, I will remind my hon. and gallant Friend of the triple purpose of this part of the Bill. It is, first of all, to secure that the staff can get what one may call loosely a capital payment where the Greenwich Hospital Act now provides for a periodic payment in the character of a pension. That is merely an administrative provision which is for the benefit of the recipients at the time when their pension rights accrue. There is nothing prejudicial there. The second purpose concerns those who have passed into the service of somebody else. It is only right that Greenwich Hospital should contribute like any other Government employers to those who have served, them. There, again, there is no difficulty. The third purpose is to extend the power of the Admiralty to make a payment in the case of industrial workers employed by the Hospital. I think my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that if these rights are to be exercised in the case of officers and clerks, we should similarly exercise them in proper cases in respect of industrial workers in the employ of the Hospital. Those are the three provisions,

and I think that the more my hon. and gallant Friend examines them, the more he will see that I was right in saying that they do provide administrative co-ordination and are without prejudice to the admirable objects of the Hospital itself.

Mr. Goldie: There was one point which I should like to raise following what has been said with regard to Sub-section (3) by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish). I find it stated in Sub-section (3):
The said section twenty, as extended by the said section eight and by the foregoing provisions of this section, shall have effect as if the words "(subject to the approval of Her Majesty in Council)" were omitted therefrom.
It seems, to me, with very great respect, that we are going rather far when on an extension of the Act such as this Bill provides for we are now asked to abolish "the approval of Her Majesty in Council" not merely for the comparatively minor matters with which this Bill is concerned but, as I understand it, for every grant made under the said Section 20 as extended by the said Section 8. The point may be a false one, and I shall be glad if my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will correct my misapprehension if I am wrong.

The Solicitor-General: I should always hesitate to refer to any point raised by my hon. and learned Friend as a false one, but I hope he will not take it amiss if I say that this point really has not great substance. As he will remember, the original provision with regard to the engagement or alteration of Admiralty staff was that no additional staff should be engaged or alteration made without an Order in Council. That was altered in 1879, when the provision requiring an Order in Council was deleted, and provision was made to allow the Admiralty to make alterations with the consent of the Treasury. My hon. Friend will notice that that does not occur in this Bill, because the Greenwich Hospital funds are not the concern of the Treasury, being charitable funds having special provisions of their own. The provision to which my hon. and learned Friend drew attention is merely one to bring the provision as to Greenwich Hospital into line with the Admiralty practice which has existed since 1879.

Mr. Goldie: I am much obliged for that explanation. I am fully satisfied.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

LAND CULTIVATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Young.]

Earl Winterton: I am grateful for the opportunity afforded by an early Adjournment Motion to raise a matter which I gave notice some time ago that I intended to bring forward, one which I venture to think is of great importance. Also, if I may speak egoistically for the moment, I am very glad, as one who, standing at this Box, has frequently had to criticise the Government, that I am now in a position not alone to criticise but to praise my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. If my right hon. Friend, after so many years of office, is still capable of blushing, I think he will blush when he hears what I am about to say, and that is that with a long experience of this House I think I Can truthfully say that I have never known a more successful Minister of Agriculture than my right hon. Friend. Where my right hon. Friend commends himself so much to many of us, as indeed do some of his colleagues, for example, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, is that when he is dealing with official matters and with those who come within his official purview he does not hesitate to tell them the truth, even though it is the unpleasant truth. The general experience of those of us who are interested in agricultural matters and have seen the development of agriculture in this war and the last is that the great majority of farmers, local authorities, who have some responsibility for agriculture, and war agricultural committees are doing their duty and doing it admirably. But there is a minority who, if I may use the phrase, need some form of scarifying, and the tight hon. Gentleman, ably seconded by the Parliamentary Secretary, and by the members of his Department, has applied

that very necessary process with the most satisfactory results.
There is, however, one matter in regard to which, although I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman, I must attach some blame to the Government as a whole, even though the circumstances which have arisen may have been unavoidable, I refer to the question of dealing with land which has not previously been cultivated, or at any rate has not been cultivated for many years. As yet that land has been dealt with only on a very small scale. To put the position more succinctly and clearly, as regards farms that were either actually or nominally farms before the war, in other words, land which was in agricultural tenancy or ownership, nothing could be better than the record alike of the Department and of the agricultural industry during the last three years, but there remain in this country I should say at least 100,000 acres of land which could be cultivated and which in any other country would have been cultivated, the majority of it in peace-time. This is no new phenomenon. The other day, when I was on fire-watching duty in this House, I happened to re-read a book, which I commend to any one of my hon. Friends interested in agriculture as being worthy of constant perusal—not merely one reading—for reference. It is the book of the late Lord Ernie on the history of British agriculture. There are some most interesting quotations in that book from well-known agricultural writers from the 15th to the 18th centuries, calling attention to the large areas of land in this country, compared with what was happening in other countries in Western Europe, remaining uncultivated, although they could be cultivated.
What are the facts in connection with this matter? This land which is not cultivated, and which I claim should be cultivated, or at any rate grazed, divides itself into two categories. I would say in parenthesis that at the moment I am concerned mainly with the South and West of England. First of all, there are literally thousands of acres of common land. Of course, very large areas of this common land in the West of England, such as on Dartmoor and Exmoor, could never be cultivated and could barely supply a living for sheep, but a great quantity of the common land was used in the 18th century and earlier, and until the middle of the 19th Century, for grazing


the villagers' cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, geese and the like. A huge area of this land has become overgrown with thorn, gorse, and other things which are detrimental to, cultivation. The reasons for this state of affairs are several, and I do not propose to weary the House by giving them all, bat I will indicate them broadly.
Firstly, the art of, to use a French phrase, petite culture has gone out, in England, to a very great extent. People who live near commons and take the trouble to keep stock are disappearing. In the old days people of that kind very often had two or three cows and sold their milk in the neighbourhood. In modern conditions of milk production, and under the proper regulations for its production, it is impossible for these people to provide the cows and the equipment necessary to produce milk which they would be permitted to sell. There are other reasons; one, incidentally, is the advent of the motor car, which has made it very difficult to keep stock on commons because of the danger of their being run over.
Further, in the old days, the rural police were less efficient than they are to-day, and they were in the habit of ignoring laws which were inconvenient to put into operation. A man who kept cattle or sheep was not prosecuted if he allowed them to stray on the highway. I do not wish to criticise our modern local constabulary, but I must say that in a great many counties the chief constable takes up a rather unfortunate attitude about this matter and insists, even on commons, that there shall be someone there to look after the animals when they are grazing. That condition is impossible to carry out. In the old days, 70 or 80 years ago, young children, who then left school at a much earlier age than they do now, or did not go to school at all, probably used to tend the animals. Those are briefly some of the reasons why these commons have gone out of cultivation. I shall revert to this matter more than once in the course of my speech.
You have, therefore, a really extraordinary and fantastic situation, to which no one has called attention in this House, unless it be a few people like myself. In this beleaguered island, where we are told every ton or every peck of grain is of value—it is constantly dinned into our ears that the food we eat, the petrol we use and

the oil we bum have mostly to be brought to this country at the risk of the lives of British sailors—there are hundreds of thousands of acres within short distances of great centres of population which might be grazing stock or growing grain and are not doing it. This astonishing situation illustrates the over-urbanised attitude of so many people. This House, the Press and the country generally are not interested in this question at all. Because of the Orders passed, they are interested in the programme for producing more food from existing land, but you still see, as I myself saw coming up in the train to-day, at least 10 per cent. of the suburban gardens uncultivated. Can we imagine such a situation existing in Germany, Italy or any of the countries on the Continent? Are we or are we not serious in this matter? Is it true, or is it not, that we need every vegetable and every potato that we can get and can grow? If it is true, I suggest, not only to the Minister of Agriculture, but even to the Prime Minister himself and to the members of the War Cabinet, that they have a great responsibility in this matter. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for being present on this occasion.
I understand that the Minister of Agriculture has power not only over agricultural land but over all vacant land, within city confines as well. I would like him to put that power into operation. I commend to his attention what I myself saw coming up from my home this morning on the Portsmouth-Waterloo line. There were large numbers of gardens to be seen from the train and a large number of vacant open spaces, all not cultivated and not used even for recreation, between, roughly speaking, Surbiton and Waterloo. The same can be seen on every railway line coming into London. We shall no doubt hear more about that matter from the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to reply.
To return to the subject of the commons, there are some very successful instances of commons having been taken over by county war agricultural committees and cultivated. I have not seen any instance myself, but I understand that there is an example in Maidenhead. An attempt was certainly made, and I do not know how far it succeeded, greatly to improve the grazing in the New Forest. I am pressing for what might be called


a twofold, or bilateral, policy. In some cases, commons should be used for grazing, to relieve the pressure from adjoining land, especially in the counties of Sussex, Hampshire and Kent and elsewhere in the South of England, where small milk farmers may be hard pressed to find sufficient grass by reason of dry summers and by reason of the ploughing-up policy. I suggest that commons should be used for these purposes and that the Home Secretary should issue an Order to all local police forces to abrogate the law on the subject of cattle straying on the highway, that special provision should be made, as it has been made in some counties, enabling people to graze their cattle on this waste land and that a lot of the rest of it may be found perfectly capable of cultivation.
In connection with certain journalistic articles which I am writing, I went round to some of the commons with a skilled photographer from a particular newspaper, and he took photographs which I should be very pleased to show to any hon. or right hon. Gentleman. They show an astonishing state of affairs. They show certain commons where there is in parts beautiful grazing, old turf with plenty of white clover, where cattle are grazing, but other areas of the common are completely overgrown. If one goes to the commoners who use the part which is grazed and ask what is the reason, when their cattle are very hardly pressed for grazing land and could do with more ground, that the rest of the common land has not been cleared, they cannot give an answer. Some of them do not even know who the lord of the manor is. They say that they have no power, no authority, that they cannot go and clear this useless scrub and brush, which would make good firewood. Much of it is birch, which, with six months' keeping, makes the finest firewood. They do not know to whom to go. It is nobody's business to deal with the scrub. If this plan of mine with regard to commons was carried out on a large scale, no doubt regard would have to be had in certain areas near large towns to the amenity aspect of the case, but in most cases these commons are hardly used at all.
In the Home Counties before the war they were largely used for picnic parties,

often to the annoyance of the local inhabitants because the picnickers were not always tidy. Now these commons are practically deserted, there being no pleasure motor traffic and practically no hiking, I claim that we should go much further in dealing with this land than from a grazing point of view, and that the Minister should take power to use these commons wherever possible for grain production during the war. I have made some rough computations, and I think that in the South and South-West of England alone there are 100,000 acres either of common land or poor woodland without standard trees which would be capable of bearing crops. Although it is too late now to prepare them for autumn sowing, they could be prepared to carry a spring sowing of oats. Assuming that I am right in saying that there are 100,000 such acres in South and South-West England alone, and assuming that they carry only three bags to the acre, that is 300,000 bags of grain. Let the House realise what that means in saving shipping. Some of us who have access to information, not official, because to refer to that would be improper, but coming not far from official sources, know that the shipping position is almost as serious and grave as it could be. We know that the country—Lord Woolton has given a hint of it—is to be asked within the next few months, perhaps in the next few weeks, to undergo a further restriction. How fantastic it is that we should be ignoring the possibility of getting food from this undeveloped land.
I come to the question of these poor woods. To those hon. Members from the North of England who are familiar with the standard woods there, what I am now about to say may seem extraordinary. But in the counties of Sussex, Kent, Hampshire and a few others there are large areas of land which were planted for the underwood business about 100 years ago in the depression which followed the Napoleonic Wars and which lasted well into the 'forties—hence the term about "the Hungry 'Forties," which did not apply to the towns so much as to the agricultural labourers. Some people owning a certain type of heavy clay realised it was more profitable to plant with underwood which could be used for various purposes, than to use it for farming land. Underwood was used


for hoops for barrels, a trade which still exists to some extent in the neighbourhood in which I live but which has been largely done away with during the last 30 or 40 years by the use of iron hoops; walking sticks and umbrella handles; hop poles, bean poles and pea poles, which were taken away and sold in the neighbouring towns and urban districts. It is also used to a small extent to-day for chestnut cleft fencing, with which hon. Members will be familiar as one sees it around so many open spaces from which the iron railings have now been taken away. That trade has largely ceased to be profitable. It is profitable only in a few districts and in respect of a few types of underwood; chestnut underwood, for example, still enjoys a high price. A few years ago chestnut underwood of 10 years' growth was selling at £25 per acre, which was higher than the price of agricultural land. But a large part of this underwood is literally derelict woodland owing to its not having been touched for many years. It is useless from a number of points of view, and that land would carry crops.
I do not speak as one without experience in these matters. Before the last war I cleared as an experiment certain underwood land that I owned, with hand labour, using picks. It was very expensive. During the last war, by arrangement with the Royal Engineers, I being on active service, I had cleared another comparatively large area, which is growing corn to-day and has been for some time past, by means of explosives, which the Royal Engineers used for blowing up the stubs. In 1918 I came home from the East, and by arrangement with the War Office took a fairly large gang of German prisoners and cleared another lot. I have also cleared some in this war. At the risk of seeming egoistic, I would like to give the House these figures. I cleared the other day an area of about two acres which I had planted with larch at a cost of £12 after my father's death in 1908. I am rather sorry to tell my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that I was a profiteer, for I sold the wood at the controlled price for £100 14 months ago. I have cleared the land by means of what are known in Australia as monkey jacks, a sort of lever that lifts the roots out of the ground. I intend to sow the land this autumn with wheat, and the war agricultural committee say that it is per-

fect suitable for the purpose. AH these methods are to-day old-fashioned, and there is one simple way of clearing this kind of land, by using a machine which I do not propose to describe fully, because I think that to some extent it is still an official secret. But American machines are being used in large numbers in various parts of England for clearing the sites of aerodromes. These machines will take out almost any root and will level almost everything.

Mr. Gallacher: How do they work with gorse?

Earl Winterton: They would not be required to take out gorse. The gyro-tiller can deal with gorse; I have seen this machine doing it. I think the Under-Secretary has seen what the Brighton Food Committee did with their gyro-tillers. Just outside Brighton. I saw them remove a whole gorse covert, where these machines, which I think are known as bulldozers, could be used. A certain amount of manual labour is required for finishing off; and the labour which is used for rnaking these aerodromes could in the same way be utilised when the aerodromes are finished. I come to the only criticism that I have—not against the right hon. Gentleman, but against the Government as a whole. If there were in this country that snappiness of effort which we see among our friends and Allies of the United States, the Prime Minister or somebody else would long ago have said, "Here we are building aerodromes on an enormous scale, with extreme rapidity, but these hundreds of thousands of acres of land which the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and others have spoken of have not been dealt with. Let us deal with them as soon as we have finished the aerodromes." Never mind the regulations; never mind if the Minister of Labour says that it is going to be difficult to induce the men to co-operate.
If there was somebody in this Government who said that, instead of allowing these matters to be dealt with by Departmental discussion he was going to give the order, in the same way as Mr. Kaiser and others in the United States are doing, these men could be turned over to this work. I would like to tell a characteristic story of Britain vis-à-vis America on this question of speed of effort. An American officer of some importance, who is a


friend of mine, was in a certain place the other day where American troops were about to come in. He saw some American sappers laying telephone wires, some underground and, some overhead. They were doing it at an astonishing rate, four or five times as rapidly as it is done in this country. My Canadian friend saw two or three Post Office workers standing by and watching with their mouths open. He said, "Well, folks, what are you looking at?" One of the men said that they had never seen anything like that in their lives. My friend asked why they did not go ahead and work at the same rate here. The man replied, "There are a whole lot of things to be thought of. There is the Postmaster-General, there are trade union regulations, and all kinds of other considerations." We are up against the failure of so many authorities—including, I am sorry to say, the Service Departments—to aim at the impossible. We have to aim at the impossible.
Lastly, I want to call attention to what I think is a scandal. I happened the other day, as a result of certain duties which I perform in connection with welfare in London, to be making a tour with Lord Nathan, who is the very efficient officer in charge of welfare among the troops in London. We were touring among certain units around London, and I saw something which would be incredible to any German or Italian or to any of our friends—quite incredible to the Russians. I saw vast commons, such as Putney Heath and Wimbledon Common, where there were a few old gentlemen walking out with their dogs, and not a sign of cultivation except for a few military spaces, where some very fine potatoes were growing, and a few allotments. Some of that land is notoriously bad and would hardly graze sheep, but some of it could be cultivated. But that is not the end of it. We are having it constantly dinned into our ears that we are desperately short of fuel. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall), who speaks for the Ministry of Fuel and Power, has told us over and over again on the wireless that we have to save all the fuel we can. I saw enough scrub, birch, hollies and things of that kind to provide any of the dormitory towns for a long time with fuel if it were cut up and stacked. Those are two instances of misuse of land. Is it conceivable that such a state of affairs would

exist anywhere near the front line in Russia?
In some paper there were pictures the other day, taken from a German newspaper, of grain actually growing in the squares of Turin and Naples. I know Naples fairly well, as my wife and I have spent several holidays there, and I know that, although just around Vesuvius the soil is good, in Naples it is very poor. Yet these Italians, the despised "Wops," as we call them, have thought it worth while to grow wheat in the middle of Naples, while the far-seeing British, with the most magnificent Government of modern times, and, as we are told again and again in the Press, the greatest leader in the Prime Minister that the world has ever seen, completely neglect hundreds of acres of common land within a few miles of the centre of the greatest mass of population in the world, because it is nobody's business to deal with it. I am well aware that if my right hon. Friend made a requisitioning order a lot of foolish people would say that they had been deprived of the opportunity of taking their dogs for a walk or of sitting under the trees holding their girls' hands. What do those people matter, anyway? Take over the commons, and take over the parks, the Royal Parks in the centre of London. Either we want production or we do not; either we are short of shipping, or we are not. The Government ought to take over the commons that are close to their hand. I am a very strong supporter of the right hon. Gentleman, and when I press these points with all the power I have it is not done in order to attack the Government.
I know that it will be said, "Where are we to get the labour?" That is a difficult question. I hope that I shall not be thought to be making an inverted class point—because nobody would deny that I am a Tory lord—if I say that you can get quite a lot of labour within a mile or so of this House, In all the fashionable London restaurants: the Savoy, the Ritz, the Dorchester, and others, there are tumbling over each other Greeks, Cypriots, Italians, and others who are waiters. The vast majority of these men—as I know from talking to them—are the sons or grandsons of peasants. Why not do rather a bold "thing, which would attract public attention, and say," We are desperately hard up for people to reclaim land, and under the powers we have we are going to take these waiters"? We


should see that they have proper conditions and use them, and we have several thousands of them in London alone. Let the people at these hotels help themselves on the cafeteria system. Would it do them any very great harm? They would be better off than the people in Stalingrad. Ministers, Members of Parliament, and representatives of the great United States and others who frequent these hotels would find that their comfort would be at least 90 per cent. higher than that of the people fighting in the streets of Stalingrad at the present time. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Privy Seal has property commended to us on more than one occasion the policy of austerity, and a little austerity applied in London hotels to those who move in high official circles would do no harm. I am glad to see that they are to have no heating or fuel. I put forward this proposal with all seriousness. There is a lot of free labour which could be put on to the land.
I apologise to the House for keeping it for so long, but my plan would, as I have said, save thousands of tons of shipping. If this country were Russia or the United States, where they are accustomed to large-scale plans executed with feverish haste, this could be carried out at once. The people of this country combine supreme heroism and courage under fire with a terrible torpidity of mind, a sort of mental constipation, and pioneers of ideas have to argue, urge, threaten and then cajole before the slow-thinking British public say, "Yes, there is something in it." The history of this war to date has been that methods, or proposals or plans in which there was something have eventually been adopted by the Government and by public opinion long after they have been urged by the pioneers of these things. If we are to win the war with rapidity and efficiency, those responsible for directing it must be ahead of public opinion rather than behind it. The Minister of Agriculture, like the Minister of Food, has teen ahead of that opinion, but we have not properly applied all manpower, machinery and other things at our disposal towards utilising the waste-land resources of this country.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I congratulate the Noble Earl the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) upon the abounding enthusiasm with which he has expressed his views, I feel I must sup-

port him most enthusiastically in the points he has advanced. Yesterday I spent a few hours on the Thames Estuary; and I was deeply interested in the developments of the Kent War Agricultural Committee. I was amazed, however, at the difficulties that have presented themselves to that committee because of the kind of restrictions which the Noble Lord has mentioned. I suggest to the Minister right away that, if there is one thing needed more than any other, it is what I would call a dive-bombing attack on the restrictions which harass and handicap the war agricultural committees in developing many of the open spaces and the land to be found within 15 miles of Charing Cross. I do not know whether the Minister is conversant with the Rochester Way or the road which leads into Kent, but within 10 miles of this House there stands a public house called "Yorkshire Grey," and within 2½ miles of it there are 500 acres of playing fields which have not been touched at all, or if they have been touched, they contain only one or two allotments as an excuse that the owners are doing something. The war agricultural committee in that area has tried to acquire this land and to persuade the owners to engage in some form of cultivation, but nothing very much has happened. It is not enough merely to say that this land is utilised for recreational purposes. Many of these recreation grounds or playing fields are under private ownership. They are either owned by big business concerns in London or by private companies or landlords who, unfortunately, are holding up production as far as the Minister and his war agricultural committees are concerned.
I submit—and this is on the authority of several members of the Kent War Agricultural Committee—that within 14 miles of Charging Cross there are over 1,000 acres of land, in the main playing fields or land in private ownership, which owing to these restrictions have not been brought into cultivation. What is the Minister going to do about it? I saw 280 acres yesterday alongside the River Thames which a few months ago presented a very difficult proposition from the farming point of view, but an enthusiastic body which interested itself in this land has not only cultivated it, but, I believe, has sown wheat for next season. That is at Belvedere, and they expect a good crop of wheat next summer. But alongside


there are over 100 acres of land which have not been touched at all, for reasons, no doubt, best known to the Minister. I am concerned about these places. Most of the local committees have acted in accordance with advice and instructions. They have responded to the appeal. In some towns within the area to which I have referred the local authorities have given up three-quarters and in some cases four-fifths of the recreation grounds of the common people and the ordinary workers for agricultural purposes, but it is not so with regard to the privately-owned playing-fields. In one case there is a very big acreage utilised for playing-fields, and the rental paid to the land-owning syndicate is round about £3 an acre. Whatever compensation there might be if they were to surrender it to the war agricultural committee, it is mere poppycock to say that they should not have to suffer loss or that this owner or that sydicate should not have to suffer loss when we know of the urgent need for the cultivation of such land as stressed by the Noble Earl.
If the Minister wants to do something "in the same enthusiastic manner which he displayed when be gave an explanation to the House during a recent Debate, he should at least mobilise his tractors in the Kent and the Surrey areas and make a panzer-like attack upon many of the open spaces and playing-fields during the next few weeks. It ought to be done. The land can be seen by anybody. I know in Surrey of land which is part of the Green Belt around London and which, owing to the enthusiasm of the war agricultural committee, the Surrey County Council and the London County Council combined, has been cultivated to the extent of nearly 100 acres out of the 230 acres available. I believe more acreage is to be put under the plough during the next few weeks. Then there is a stretch of land towards the Kingston by-pass—I believe it is called the mid-Eastern Surrey area—where there is at least another 1,000 acres. Cannot we be told what is to happen to many of these areas? Cannot we be told the attitude of the Minister towards these playing-fields? If these restrictions are holding up activity on the part of the war agricultural committees, cannot the Minister deal with them effectively right away? It is no use his indulging in land reclamation—although I

was grateful for the arrangement which he made to enable certain Members of this House to see land development in Cambridgeshire a few weeks ago. It takes time and valuable labour to reclaim land, but here is land which is not being used by cricket and other recreational clubs to-day as it was being used in pre-war days.
It is no use the Minister saying that we must have some form of recreation and diversion from the war effort and that, therefore, we must have these cricket pitches. I can assure him that some playing-fields I know are not in use for half-a-dozen hours each week. These playing-fields can be seen by any of his inspectors or members of the war agricultural committees, and I appeal to him to send out his officials in the London zone—he need go no further than 20 miles from Charing Cross—where he will find 3,000 or 4,000 of the 100,000 acres which the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing said were available in the country. I have suggested a panzer attack with tractors and a dive-bombing attack on the restrictions which are hamstringing the, war agricultural committees. I hope the Minister will not be mealy-mouthed in his observations but will let the landowning classes and the various other people know exactly what is needed, so that the war agricultural committees can be freed from the handicap to which I and the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing have referred.

Major Heilgers: I was unable to get here in time to hear the beginning of this discussion, but I cannot help feeling that it was rather a pity it should have been raised. We have, after all, made the greatest effort ever made so far in agriculture and the production of food in this country. We have at the present, moment the greatest number of acres under the plough that has ever been under the plough. This discussion in the House of Commons will go forth to the world——

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend, but, if I may say so, I have some reason to object to his attitude. He calmly admits that he was not here at the beginning of my speech, yet had he been here or had he troubled to find out what I had said, he would have known that I paid a great tribute to what has already been done.


It is one of the finest things in the history of this country, but I want to go a step farther.

Major Heilgers: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of my Noble Friend's speech, but I was on duty and could not get here before. I am glad to hear that he drew attention to the great work which has been done in this country as regards agriculture, but, nevertheless, the observations he made still leave me rather cold. I do not believe there is a great deal of land still remaining to be ploughed up.

Earl Winterton: Come to my constituency.

Major Heilgers: Speakers in this Debate have been talking about the London parks and country within 14 miles of Charing Cross. I admit there is a considerable acreage that could be ploughed up in that area, but to how much does it amount? Is it not very small compared with what has been done? Is it not a fraction of what has been done? Are you not giving forth to the world a false impression? If you attack Hyde Park and get it ready for agriculture, by how much do you imagine you can improve the production of this country? I think you could balance all the extra land you might make available for food production within 14 miles of Charing Cross if the House of Commons was a little more firm with the Air Ministry in their extravagant demands for land. I admit, however, that there is one side of pleasure and entertainment which could be attacked, and that is the enormous number of golf courses remaining in this country. I have not much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) in what he said about playing-fields. After all, although they may not be used a great deal, they are places where the youth of this country gets its health and strength. If we are to have an A1 nation—and we want our young people to be strong and able members of this nation, especially in peace-time—the first thing is to give them playing-fields on which they can exert and increase their strength. Therefore, I deprecate any attack on playing-fields in the neighbourhood of big cities like London.
As I have said, there is, perhaps, a case for a review of the situation in regard to golf courses, but I hope no extravagant

hopes will be raised by the prospect of cutting down trees and shrubs in London's parks. Can you imagine how many more acres you will get or how much more we will grow? Would you be able to grow much more than vegetables, than potatoes of which, fortunately, we have an abundant supply? It would take some time before fields of wheat could be grown in Hyde Park and Green Park. It would be a great pity if it went out to the world that the acreage of London parks is to be cut down and the trees uprooted.

Earl Winterton: Why?

Major Heilgers: Because the land in those parks will not produce a great amount of food. We ought to be proud of this nation and the agricultural industry in general for what is being done, and I deprecate this petty carping at small points which are apparent to those who live in big cities. Go out and see the enormous production of food which is going on in this country. I beg hon. Members not to give to the world a false impression of British agriculture.

Rear Admiral Beamish: Certainly, I do not intend to carp at anybody; I want to try to make a practical contribution to a subject which is of enormous interest and importance at the present time. I wish to thank my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for having raised this matter. In his speech he covered a great deal of ground and made many suggestions, and it would be quite wrong to suggest that he concentrated his efforts on any such matter as the ploughing of London parks. I look upon the Minister of Agriculture as a very exceptional Minister. I have never met any farming people who did not feel the same thing, except perhaps a few of the bad farmers—and they cannot always help being bad.

The question of the use of derelict agricultural land is of extreme national importance at this time. I know very well the part of the country from which the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Major Heilgers) comes. It is flat land, there is not a large number of trees, and there is an immense amount of cultivation. I live in a different part of the country. I have seen what, as far as I know, one does not see around Bury St. Edmunds—considerable areas of hopelessly bad looking land, covered over with


gorse and thorn, torn to pieces, bulldozed and turned into good, useful productive land. Naturally, when I see that happen and afterwards see wheat and oats in magnificent crops on that land, it rather influences me. This matter is a really serious one. History will say that we misused, or failed to use, all the available land in this country, and that in consequence of that policy we ran the gravest risks in this war. I say, with every feeling of responsibility, that I hope this failure of ours will not lead to the defeat of this country. I do not put it any lower than that. The food situation is very grave,-and it is right and proper that we should do anything we can to improve it.

Although I am not a technical expert in farming, I fully realise that there is a shortage of certain kinds of fertilisers, particularly phosphatic fertilisers, which we do not produce in this country; but I realise also that a very large amount of the land that has been ploughed up is practically virgin soil, and certainly for the first year it can get along quite well without special fertilisers. It should be remembered that we are growing vast quantities more of grain crops and we have much more straw; and I am not appalled by the prospect of a shortage of certain types of fertilisers. The Minister of Agriculture has said that he is anxious to see removed the enormous gap between the good farmer and the bad farmer and the wide gap between the good farmer and the average farmer. That is a sufficient indication of the seriousness of the situation. Surely, such a statement from a responsible and very highly respected Minister is a measure of his anxiety. I know that my right hon. Friend tells audiences of farmers that he is anxious about the food position. Hardly a week passes without our being told that some alterations are to be made in the quality of our bread and the distribution of our food. As far as the gaps are concerned, I do not see—although it is not entirely relevant to the Debate—how we could expect anything else when, during the whole of my lifetime, it has been the policy of this country to keep the farm workers the lowest paid workers in the country, although they do work of the highest national importance. The bad farmers and the moderate farmers cannot help themselves, for they are the victims

of the pre-war policy of this country. They have many virtues and they have a great deal of courage. The good fanners—and there are some wonderful farmers in my part of the country—are the princes of our biggest and most important industry at the present time.

Reference has been made to the county war agricultural executive committees. I have some contact with the one in my own county, and I realise what extraordinarily fine work it has done. I will quote only two or three figures to show the extra-, ordinary increases that have taken place, although those increases are not sufficient and do not touch the fringe of the matter dealt with by my noble Friend the Member for Horsham. Comparing 1942 with 1938, there has been an increase in my county in the wheat area from 13,000 to 32,000 acres. That is very encouraging, but it is not enough, and even if the figure goes up to 50,000 acres, as it is hoped, it will not be enough. The acreage under oats has increased from 10,000 to 24,000, and potatoes from 2,000 to 4,500. When I told a friend that I hoped to speak on this subject in the House, he said, "I will give you an instance. I know of a very rough old field of 75 acres, covered with rubbish and thorns, which for many years produced a total of 2,000 rabbits per annum as its contribution to the food' position—about 3 tons of rabbits. It is now producing, without any fertiliser in its first year, 500 tons of potatoes." That is the sort of thing that, naturally, makes a great appeal to me, and I hope to a great many others.

Either there is a food problem or there is not. We cannot go on in the condition in which we are at the present time, with the Minister of Food saying, "Be careful, eat less, do not waste anything, I shall have to put you on shorter commons," and the Minister of Agriculture saying, "Grow more, improve your farming capacity, let everybody go all out." Those statements from two Ministers are an indication of the shortage of food in this country at the present time. Nobody can say that the Minister of Agriculture has not done his best. He has done a very good best indeed. I hope he has forced his views—which he is constantly forcing upon the farmers and upon the public—upon the Cabinet to the utmost of his capacity. Unless the county committees can get the support of the Cabinet,


the use of labour, the use of money, the use of machinery, and expanded powers, they cannot do much, if anything, beyond what they are doing at the present time. I think they would succeed completely if they had the assistance and support I have mentioned.

This may be a rather fantastic idea, but nevertheless, I put it forward. There is a very large area of land with which, it is said, nothing can be done, but there is also a very large area of land on which there is a great deal of very fine quality soil. With modem machinery we could salvage millions of tons of good soil from beds of rivers and streams, which is now being carried out to sea, to help the productivity of our land. Millions of tons of good soil have been washed away for thousands of years from the hilly parts of the country and now rests in narrow valleys and what are called ghylls.

I should now like to turn to the question of labour. I can only read between the lines, because I have not the fullest information to enable me to say for certain that labour could be forthcoming for the purposes I have mentioned, but I think it is evident that a good deal of the labour at present employed in the erection of munition factories and engaged on other essential work will shortly be available for other uses. In my opinion this labour, with the men adequately paid and properly housed, could be encouraged to make a contribution to the improvements I have suggested.

No one in this House is a greater lover of trees than myself, but in my opinion vast numbers of trees could be cut down so that land could be brought into cultivation, if we are in the peril which we all know exists. When I look from the Downs to the north and look from the north Downs across the Weald, I can see magnificent forests but no land; not a landscape, but a treescape, and certainly not a farmscape. There are millions of trees, oak and common trees, Which could be dispensed with. We must not forget that we are at war and that we may be at war for years to come, and I urge most strongly that these considerations should not be overlooked. I notice that the authors of the Reports of the Scott and Uthwatt Committees speak of the traditional beauty of this land. No one loves the beauty of our land more than I, but I suggest that those responsible for these

Reports are not producing the food for the nation. To-day we hear much about growing more and eating less, but I wonder what our failure to use the land to the utmost means in terms of shipping, in loss of valuable lives, strain and unnecessary work and loss to the Navy. I feel sure that a great deal of excess burden has been put and is being put upon the Navy which might well have been used in other directions.

In travelling about the world, like so many others, one sees the tremendous efforts which the populations of other countries make to supply themselves with foodstuffs. I suggest that we are not making tremendous or prodigious efforts to provide ourselves with the necessary foodstuffs, and I say this having seen the terraced lands of the Mediterranean and the East, and the walled enclosures of Malta, where for centuries soil has been imported and conserved by stone walls, and has now become immensely fruitful. Such are the results of necessity and hunger. We are now faced with necessity and hunger, but we are not utilising our land to the utmost extent. Do not let us put too great a strain upon the Navy and ask them to do more than is reasonable as we have been doing up to now. For years people have said things will be all right and plenty of food will come from overseas. That may be so, but it would have been much better had we not had to import so much because our shipping losses would have been far less. I have no intention of carping at anyone, but I hope the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues will say after this Debate, "A case has been made out, and something ought to be done." Let them ask for more powers and for more money and machinery and labour, and, when they have got them, let them use them fully and grow more for the nation.

Mr. Quibell: The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) is to be congratulated on initiating this Debate. It is an undoubted fact that thousands of acres of land in this country are capable of growing good crops if only we had the labour and machinery to bring them into active cultivation. I say to-day, as I have said in previous Debates, that while I am anxious for every acre of land which is capable of growing crops of grain or root to be brought into cultivation, I am also anxious that the land already


under the plough should be improved to grow the largest amount of food possible. In travelling about the country I have seen land with a little grain, a few docks, a few thistles and a crop of twitch, and this is due to the shortage of labour and machinery. The farmers have been ordered to plough up the land, but they have had insufficient labour and machinery, which has made it impossible for them properly and thoroughly to cultivate it. This is something which ought to receive the attention of the Minister of Agriculture.
I was interested in what the Noble Lord said about clearing scrub land, because I, together with a friend of mine, have had some experience of this. The Noble Lord was at the paying end, and so were we. The piece of land in question was of eight acres, and for over 60 years it had not grown a pound of food. I did not do much in the matter myself, but I looked over the land and encouraged my friend. We employed machinery and some labour, and we obtained a 40 horse-power tractor. We uprooted the land. On that same piece of ground last year we grew 40 tons of potatoes. It paid all expenses, and there was a balance in hand. I am sorry it has taken a war for us to have to do things like this. The House of Commons in the past has been too factory-minded and urban-minded to care anything about developing our native land and growing the food that we ought to have done. If we had had a price level for agricultural commodities 10 years ago, which some of us pressed for, we should not now be lamenting the fact that the country is not producing the amount of food that it should. I have seen a really marvellous revolution in food production during the last year. One farmer in my division tells me that he has 600 days of threshing on his farm. It takes some believing, but he is farming 12,000 acres. I think he is farming far too much for one man, but he farms it well and is making the fullest possible use of the resources at his hand and so making a great contribution to victory.
It is possible for a great deal more land to be put under the plough. I went round with the official of my borough who is responsible for letting and re-letting allotments, and we found 150 acres of land within the borough which was not being cultivated. He said he was only responsible for taking over sufficient land

to meet the demand for allotments. The war agricultural committee is not responsible for cultivating those 150 acres. Between them and the horticultural committee of the county council it is not taken over and is not being cultivated. There is a good deal of overlapping. Playing-fields and parks should be used to augment the food supply. Steel works and large companies each have their own playing-fields, and there is a good deal of overlapping in playing-fields used by elementary and secondary schools and grammar schools which could possibly make a contribution to our food supply. I think the Ministry of Agriculture has, done infinitely better than the Ministry of Food, for it has grown food, though the Ministry of Food through lack of foresight has let a good deal of it be wasted. I hope that will not be repeated during the coming year. In my division parks are sacred, and there are huge areas only supporting a few deer. I have done my best to get one park used as a landing ground for an aerodrome, but the Air Ministry chose to destroy two farms and to leave the park alone. Vested interests are not dead yet, and I was unable to overcome the opposition. Experience in this war has fortified me in the belief that, if we had paid as much attention to the land as we have done to the development of our major industries, England would have been quite capable of feeding herself now. This Debate is timely, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will not resent it. There has been no carping criticism of what the Minister has done or has attempted to do. Our desire is rather to help and encourage him to make an even greater contribution to the problem of food supplies.

Mr. Mathers: I think the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has done a real service in raising this matter. He certainly had an excellent opportunity, and I congratulate him on the advantage that he took of it. I hope I shall not be looked upon as a trespasser in participating in what is a purely English Debate, because the Noble Lord pretty well confined his remarks to the Southern and Western part of South Britain, and I know that the Minister of Agriculture has no responsibility for agriculture north of the Tweed. I do not want to raise controversial points, but I am concerned about the use to which the products of the land are put once


they are produced. Everyone is agreed that there ought to be, not only in wartime but in peace-time, a greater use of the productivity of the soil. That is further strengthened in war-time owing to the risk and danger involved in bringing the products of other countries to meet the food position in this country. Because of these considerations, because of the danger that has been mentioned in the Debate to-day of bringing goods from overseas to feed our population, and the necessity of producing more food in this country, I have been reminded of the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture to the way in which certain products are used. I would much rather have been speaking in the presence of the Minister than asking my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with this point.
Some time ago I raised the question about the production of rye in this country and obtained a reply from the Minister that whatever purpose the rye was put to it would receive the subsidy payment for, ploughing up the land on which it was grown. I followed that up by asking the Minister what was the scientific basis of the statement he was reported to have made in the north of England that rye used for the production of beer was making as valuable contribution to the national effort, and, indeed, to our food resources, as rye used with wheat to make bread. His retort to me was that he thought the basis was a commonsense one. I have not been able to find that common-sense, however that term may be used, justifies the use of grain of any kind, and, therefore, from the point of view of food value, its almost entire destruction, in the making of beer, nor that his statement is justified on scientific lines. I hope that in giving consent, as I hope it will be given, to the urge that has been expressed from many sides of the House to-day that land will be used in the future more than ever it has ever been used in the past for the production of food and the products from which food can be made, the Ministry of Agriculture will not show an attitude which is expressed in the Minister's statement that there is as much food value to be got by destroying grain in making it into beer as there is by using it for normal food purposes.

Mr. Montague: Is my hon. Friend taking the line that what he

likes is productive and what other people like is necessarily waste?

Mr. Mathers: I limited myself, in the point that I put to my right hon. Friend, to the Minister's statement that the grain used for the making of beer is used for as sound, worthy and useful a purpose as that used for the making of bread.

Mr. Montague: We do not live by bread alone.

Mr. Mathers: I stand as one who does not use the grain that is destroyed in making beer and who uses that which is used for making bread. I do not seek in the slightest degree to push my own personal point of view in the way that my hon. Friend is apparently trying to push his.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): I am sure that it would be folly on my part to intervene between my two hon. Friends in their discussion as to whether beer contains food value or whether to produce beer is common sense or otherwise. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) has ever tasted beer. I have heard it said that he is a lifelong teetotaller. In that case it would be difficult for him to determine whether beer has a food value or not. I am bound to confess that my knowledge of beer is so fragmentary that I am unable to say whether to turn rye into bread or turn it into beer is the wiser policy for this country to pursue.

Mr. Mathers: There are scientific data on this subject that should be within the knowledge of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Williams: I have seen some of the scientific data based upon the beer which used to be made very many years ago which had a real food value. Whether all the food value has been extracted during the past 30 or 40 years I am unable to say. It certainly is true that there are slight differences of opinion as to the food value of beer, and it is clear from my two hon. Friends that the discussion could go on for a considerable time before they reached happy and harmonious conclusions.
Turning to the speech of the noble Lord who introduced this Debate, I am sure that neither my right hon. Friend nor any other Member of the House could com-


plain of the tone, temper or substance of that speech. Despite the bumper harvest which we have all seen in the countryside and which should have brought joy to the eyes and heart of every individual who saw it, except, of course, the born pessimist, who, if he saw a nice field of com, would look to the opposite hedge and hope to see a field of thistles—in spite of that, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will not and cannot complain if there are still some Oliver Twists who demand more and yet more food production in this country. He has been ceaseless in his non-stop efforts to secure the maximum yield from the maximum acreage consistent with the available supplies of labour, machinery and fertilisers. He has not done this from a cosy office in Whitehall with his feet on the mantelpiece. He has gone out into the highways and byways. He has visited parks, farms, commons, hills, derelict land, scores of demonstrations on farms, and so forth, to acquire the knowledge necesary for any successful Minister of Agriculture. Here and there a word of warning has had to be given to the farmers, with a word of advice occasionally and a word of encouragement where it was necessary.
I am sure that every hon. Member will agree that my right hon. Friend has not been wholly unsuccessful, because we have just harvested what must be a record harvest for this country during any period. But in dealing with parks, commons, down land or waste land, obviously a decision has to be taken as to whether or not it is land which is suitable for the employment of labour bearing in mind the shortage of labour. We dare not waste any of our available labour on costly reclamation schemes or on third-class park or common or down land at the expense of neglecting good arable land. The Noble Lord said he could think of 100,000 acres of land which might have produced 300,000 bags of grain. That is perfectly true, and no hon. Member would dare to deny it, but the labour that would Have been needed on that 100,000 acres of land to produce 300,000 bags of grain might very well have been better used on another 100,000 acres of land which would produce 600,000 or 900,000 bags of grain.

Earl Winterton: The genesis of my argument was this: Large areas of existing farm land have been cleared, but

much larger areas of land could have been cleared if only the Ministry had obtained power to make use of the "bulldozers" used on aerodromes in order to clear the land. It is a question of clearing the land.

Mr. Williams: The Noble Lord will appreciate that I am not contesting his point that the land is there, but all too frequently the decision which has to be taken either by the county agricultural executive committee or by the Ministry itself has to be based upon the best use to which to put the available labour, and the gradual increase in the acreage under cultivation from 1939 to 1942 is the clearest indication that such labour and such machinery as we had have been used to the best possible advantage, because otherwise we should not have enjoyed the good harvest which, has just been gathered in. The question of cultivating commons and parks is continually under review by county agricultural executive committees, and as we find ourselves in charge of more Italian labour or with an increase in the numbers in the Women's Land Army so we find it possible to divert skilled men from here to there, mixing and blending skilled labour with unskilled labour, and to take charge of more park, common or down land for cultivation. The question is always under review, but always with due regard, and I must emphasise this point, to the available supplies of labour, machinery and fertilisers, It can be said that large areas on which a certain course had been pursued in 1941 grew com this year, in many cases very good crops, and now that area is added to the com growing area.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I am impressed by what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, but if the principle is agreed to that more land can be broken up and will be broken up if the labour and materials are provided, can he say whether the Minister thinks that would be a good plan?

Mr. Williams: My hon. and gallant Friend can take it from me, even without my uttering the words, that nothing would give my right hon. Friend the Minister greater joy than to be able to extend the area of cultivation and to improve the crops from the acres already cultivated. We are, however, always confronted with a shortage of either labour, machinery or fertilisers, and with


all the will in the world it is no use setting about the reclamation of vast areas of third-class land or undertaking costly clearance schemes if that rneans diverting labour from land which is of far greater productivity, because in the end we should lose by the process.
I assumed that in raising this question the Noble Lord would be particularly interested in commons and parks in Kent, Surrey and East and West Sussex in particular, and I paid a personal visit to certain of those areas. I roamed over the county of Kent far and wide and in all my travels I did not see one park which was not either cultivated or being used for grazing purposes or used by one or other of the Services. I came away from Kent feeling more than happy that the county agricultural executive committee had not discriminated between Noble Lords and poorly placed farmers, but that all and sundry had made their contribution where it was proved that their land was capable of giving a good return for the efforts put into it. I tried to get a general bird's eye view of the four counties of which I have spoken expressly in order to be able to reply to the Noble Lord and to fill in any missing links. In West Sussex there are not many very large commons. Portions of smaller commons are already under cultivation. There is a large area of light sandy soil west of Midhurst, but I learn that soil tests have shown that that land is of little or no agricultural value. Most of the other commons are heavy clay soil which would certainly absorb too much labour in their present condition for us to undertake their cultivation.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: Is it not the case that bygone lords of the manor enclosed all the good land and left only very poor land for the commons?

Mr. Williams: I believe that was their general intention, but a series of soil tests taken recently has proved that in some cases they failed in their endeavours to enclose the best land, for some of it is not nearly so good as the lords of the manor of that day thought it would be. In East Sussex——

Earl Winterton: Before the Parliamentary Secretary leaves West Sussex, may I ask this question? Did he look at the thousands of acres of woodlands

which I have described which were once agricultural land—you can trace the old banks—but which are now poor woodlands? I myself and others have proved that such land can very simply, by the use of certain machinery, be brought back into cultivation. It is not a question of labour but of obtaining the machinery from the Air Ministry or other Departments.

Mr. Williams: I had intended to refer to the question of bulldozers and other machinery later, but I had better say at once to the Noble Lord that the West Sussex County Agricultural Executive Committee are very fully aware of the possibilities of the land referred to, but are also painfully aware of the shortage of labour for bringing it into cultivation, despite the use of either the bulldozer, the prairie buster or any one of the other machines brought over from America. The constant question before country committees and others responsible for cultivation is how much labour they can spare for clearing this area or that without neglecting the known good arable land in the district.

Earl Winterton: May I explain that when I asked the war agricultural committee to obtain machinery for me and offered to supply the labour myself to use for growing wheat on a large area of land, they said they were very sorry but they had not the machinery and could not get it out of the Government?

Mr. Williams: At the time when the Noble Lord put the question the reply of the county executive committee would no-doubt be strictly true, for it must be known that both the Royal Air Force and the Army had machinery for their own purposes which was denied to my right hon. Friend for considerable periods; but the moment my right hon. Friend was able to make out a case to either of the two Service Departments, we were able to borrow from them various kinds of machines not hitherto available to us. The maximum use is being made of them, if not in West Sussex, then in certain other parts of the country. I ought to emphasise further that, for whatever machinery we have available, in every county there is a machinery committee. The county is sub-divided into districts, and there is a machinery officer in each district. It is our object and the object of the counties to see that the maximum


use is made of all machinery, whether the machine be a prairie buster or a bulldozer. The Noble Lord can take it for granted that any landlord who desires to clear an area of land but is unable for the moment to secure the use of a bulldozer, may be sure that somebody is using the bulldozer at that time. Since there is a limitation on our imports, applying to agricultural machinery as well as to wheat, food and other war equipment, we can use only the machinery to hand. That is perhaps why many of the areas referred to by the Noble Lord, and by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish), not all of them first-class agricultural land and some of them only third-class, have not been explored up to the present moment.
I hope that the Noble Lord will now allow me to proceed into East Sussex and to tell him exactly the position there, as far as we know it. Ashdown Forest, Crow-borough, Challey, and Ditchling are the largest commons in East Sussex. Samples of soil have shown that, in their present condition, those vast areas are of little or no agricultural value. They would require much reclamation work and much lime and artificials, before tillage crops could be grown. There again, it is a question of balancing the use to which labour can be put. In Kent, I know of several large commons, such as Keston, Hayes, Chislehurst and Dartford Heath, all of which are of little agricultural value. The Noble Lord will appreciate that, when I say that they are of little agricultural value, the statement is based upon tests that have been made of the soil in every one of those areas; and not merely upon one test. Several tests have been taken, in order that county executives undertaking a new reclamation scheme may be sure that they are adding something of real value to our tillage acreage. The Noble Lord said that hundreds of thousands of acres were available for the grazing of cattle or sheep. There may be examples such as were chosen by the Noble Lord where, perhaps from lack of wire or means of keeping cattle off the roadway, the areas were not grazed as keenly as they might be; on the whole, wherever we find that a park or a piece of common is not suitable for cultivation, because of the large amount of labour that would be called for, we insist upon those areas being grazed by cattle, sheep or both.
In regard to parks, all executive committees have had inspections made and reports prepared, with a view to cultivation. There are many parks under cultivation. I myself saw some glorious crops in various parks in Kent. Indeed, in one park there, with a tree to my right, a tree to my left and a tree forward, the people had dodged round with the tractor. They must have been almost acrobatic to do the ploughing, the sowing and finally the harvesting of the magnificent crops. I said to myself, as I stood there and looked at it:"If the Kent War Agricultural Executive Committee insist upon a park with so many trees being ploughed, and sown down to wheat, I cannot imagine that they would neglect any park in their area." I am certain, from what I saw later, that in no case have the Kent Committee neglected to have a park ploughed up if they thought that a reasonable quantity of food could be produced.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Were not most of those parks in the ownership of local authorities and very few in private ownership?

Mr. Williams: Oh dear no. So far as I could see, it made no difference at all whether the park was private or public. If a park was capable of producing good crops with a reasonable minimum of labour, that park has been made to produce good crops in 1942. I should like to make it clear that I do not think any discrimination is being shown in the counties in which I have had the good fortune to travel. There may be an odd case, such as was referred by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), and no one would deny it. If my hon. Friend is aware of any park of any size, easily cultivable but not being dealt with, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be the first to see that the county committee were asked the reason why. I gave an example of one county and of what is happening. What has happened up to date is the clearest indication that parks have not been neglected, in our desire to get the maximum acreage and maximum yield from each acre.
Let me take the sort of county in which the Noble Lord might be most interested—West Sussex. So far as I can get a report the position there is as follows: West Grinstead Deer Park—all the deer have been killed. Some of the land is


already under crops and all available remaining land is being ploughed now. Knapp Castle parklike grounds—consideraible area already under crops. All available remaining area being ploughed now. Warnham Park—used largely for dairy cattle. Up Park—greater part under corn crops. Goodwood—considerable area under crops. Petworth—many cattle and sheep grazed. Area suitable for ploughing not sufficiently large to justify erection of fences. Dale—Northern end under crops, Southern part unsuitable for ploughing. Stansted—considerable area under crops. Further heavily overgrown area being cleared for cropping in 1943. I need not go beyond that to indicate that parks have not been forgotten or neglected. The list is by no means exhaustive and applies only to West Sussex. I am hopeful that every county executive will pay the same attention to the cultivation of parks as the West Sussex executive committee appear to have done. If should be realised, however, that parks and commons vary in texture and in their agricultural utility.
A further point that ought to be emphasised in a Debate of this description is this: There are large areas of parks or commons that have been used wholly or in part by various war Departments either for training or as camp sites, and it will be understood, I know, by hon. Members that the demand by the, Service Departments is continually growing and that several commons, and parks for that matter, have been left in reserve exclusively for those purposes. Indeed, county executive committees are encouraging the War Office to take over these areas in preference to good farm land. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg referred to two farms having been taken over by the Air Force whereas a certain park might have served their purpose equally well. That may have happened in an isolated case, but if my right hon. Friend can prevent either the Air Force or the War Department from taking our best agricultural land, diverting them into commons, parks or elsewhere he will do so; he is constantly waging war and trying to preserve for ourselves the best cultivable land in the country. It seems to me elementary common sense that whether it be either park land; common land, or downland not yet being cultivated, and the value of which is doubtful, it is far better to divert the various Ser-

vices to those areas than to let them take our best agriculural land and leave this second or third or fourth-rate land for use later.

Earl Winterton: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I put to him a point which I wish he would put to the war agricultural committees, and, at the risk of making myself unpopular with my constituents, to the West Sussex Committee? May I say that a lot of these people, because they have always farmed in this country, seem to assume that you cannot plough up land of equal quality with land adjoining which is being farmed without the extensive use of fertilisers. As one who has farmed on a large scale in new countries, I say that is absolute nonsense. On land that has never been used for crops you can grow in the first year, and probably in the second year, crops without any fertiliser at all. Will he do his best to have such an idea removed, because it has been proved wrong by the war?

Mr. Williams: On the other hand, by trial and experiment the statement which the Noble Lord makes has been proved to be wrong during the present war. I am sure we can supply evidence which justifies the statement I make, and for us to go all out on reclamation schemes hoping that we can produce reasonable crops without fertilisers would perhaps not only be wasting our man-power and machinery but would be wasting the general effort too. Nevertheless, if the Noble Lord has any case in point which he thinks he might like to submit to my right hon. Friend, I am sure that neither my right hon. Friend nor any member of the Department will refrain from examining it faithfully and meticulously—or any case that might be brought to our notice.

Mr. Quibell: My right hon. Friend stresses the fact that some of this land is very poor and that because we are short of manures it would not be worth ploughing up. The case I have referred to is of land derelict for 60 years where the rotting vegetation has provided manure for the two years. In the first year the land grew 40 tons of potatoes.

Mr. Williams: I do not make a wide sweeping statement to the effect that no land would produce a crop without fertilisers, but what we have done by way of


experiment on certain common and down-land justifies the statement I have made that without fertilisers we could hope for very little in the shape of a crop. With regard to downland, the executive committees and farmers have not hesitated to put them under the plough where the soil tests justified it. The present programme, for instance, is to reclaim about 1,000 acres of downland in West Sussex for the 1943 harvest. Similar action is being taken in Kent and East Sussex. West Sussex are reclaiming 1,500 more acres of derelict weald clay, most of which has not been ploughed in the past fifty years. That goes to indicate that constant tests are being made and areas are being added as and when material and labour are available, [interruption.] I am sure the House of Commons fully appreciates the contribution the Noble Lord is making by stressing this point constantly, and we have no objection. In Kent and East Sussex they are proposing to cultivate thousands of acres of marshlands in the Pevensey, Romney, Rye, Sandwich and Faversham areas and other parts.
The drive for more tillage areas for corn is stronger to-day than it has been even in any previous part of the war. Again one must curb one's activities in the light of the limitation of labour, machinery and fertilisers. Land of the kind referred to might have been rendering a contribution if before the war it had been the accepted policy that we could have grown more food in this country. With a sound agricultural policy then it would not have been necessary for us to reclaim this land, which would have been reclaimed many years ago. I am sure that hon. Members will realise that although the war has been proceeding for three years, which is a long time from the point of view of brutalities and that sort of thing, it is not a long time in which to reclaim hundreds of thousands or millions of acres of land, which might have been ready and available in September, 1939.
With regard to labour, we are fortunate in the sense that we have doubled the Women's Land Army this year. About 50,000 members of that army are rendering yeoman service on the land. From all the reports we know that in spite of the hesitancy at the commencement on the part of farmers to accept these women they are employing new recruits

as fast as they are passed through the various training centres. I think that both the women and the farmers who employ them axe enjoying the association. Output is increasing as a result. My right hon. Friend also hopes that before the end of this year we might have an addition to the number of Italian prisoners. They are peculiarly useful for these reclamation schemes, drainage work, and work of that kind on the land, particularly if we can have a few skilled agricultural labourers to tighten up their work and give them that lead which is so necessary.
One of the questions which the Noble Lord has perhaps not appreciated to the full, and which perhaps many other hon. Members in this House have not appreciated, is that we are short of houses in rural areas. In many areas where we have reclaimed land in remote agricultural counties the land is there ready for cultivation. It requires a farm foreman, or deputy foreman or a skilled labourer. We could get any one of the three if there was a house for that person to reside in, but since the house is not there the foreman, deputy foreman or skilled labourer cannot be persuaded to go. Consequently, there are many acres to-day in danger of not being cultivated, because of the shortage of houses in many rural areas in this country. That is a pre-war problem which no Government would face up to, and now we are suffering from that legacy of a shortage of agricultural houses which is one of the prime problems with regard to agriculture to-day as well as before the war. We are hopeful that some assistance might come to our aid through the Ministry of Works and Planning, but certainly an extension of the area of cultivation could have been intensified perhaps if the housing problem had not been so nearly acute.

Earl Winterton: Have you not priority powers?

Mr. Williams: Yes, but there are other Ministers who have priority powers. My Noble Friend will not forget that there is an importation of soldiers from other parts of the world. You cannot expect hundreds of thousands of them to come across the Atlantic, and to lie out in the middle of fields; accommodation must be provided for them. [Interruption.] The Noble Lord's observation does not seem to be, quite to the point. I am certain he could not persuade any foreign Government,


friendly or otherwise, to send hundreds of thousands of men to this country if it was known that they would have to lie in the middle of fields. Other Departments have their priority claims, and it is a question of balancing one with another. We are doing our best to get our share of the labour.

Earl Winterton: They will not get houses when they have to go to France.

Mr. Williams: That may be so, but they must have some accommodation here; otherwise, we could not expect them to be sent over. So far as machinery is concerned, we are trying, through the county executive committees, to make the best use of it, whether the machinery has been produced at home or imported. We are trying to divert fertilisers to where the land requires them most. In exercising our authority for allocating these resources, we have met with few or no criticisms from the farmers. I understand that in my absence my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) said that he was going to treat me lightly; and I gather that he did treat me very lightly. All I can say is that I will not forget him and his kindness to-day when the next election comes.

Mr. E. Walkden: The Minister is one of my constituents.

Mr. Williams: With regard to the ploughing-up of fields and golf courses, it may be that an odd playing-field or so too many is left for the children; but we can say, on the whole, that even in the town represented by my hon. Friend a good playing-field has been ploughed up in the last year, and that it produces a good deal of oats for livestock.

Mr. E. Walkden: What about the golf course?

Mr. Williams: I do not know whether my hon. Friend refers to the golf course at Doncaster or to that in the Don Valley. That in the Don Valley would not be worth the labour required to plough it up: as for the other, it is a toss up whether it would be worth while or not. On the whole, I can say that when a golf course has been examined by a county executive committee, if it would be worth while to plough it up—and the compensation at the end of the war would not be too colossal—there is

no hesitation in either ploughing it up or in grazing cattle or sheep upon it. That is the policy, and it has been for at least two years.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: Does that also apply to Doncaster racecourse?

Mr. Williams: If my hon. Friend has not been to Doncaster race course for the past two years, I can tell him, with tears in my eyes, that immediately the war broke out the Army took possession of the race course, and that they have used the interior part of it for German and Italian prisoners. There have been no races held there for the past three years, nor have there been any race horses there. In odd spots tiny crops have even been produced on Doncaster race course, where nobody would have thought that anything but dandelions could be produced. [Interruption.] I said that this was done in very small spots: if we had taken the general advice of the Noble Lord, and had ploughed up the whole of it, we should have wasted a lot of labour, a lot of machinery, and a lot of money. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes said that we were importing too much food, before the war and now. I have a faint recollection of having said something of this sort for years before the war, but nobody worried about it. If my hon. and gallant Friend can persuade many of the people who are operating in the City that it would be serving the nation well to produce more from our own acres in peace-time, he would be doing the country a service. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg was going to reveal one or two pages from the Book of Lamentations, but I was glad to discover that he has himself found that there has been a revolution in agricultural production in these last two or three years. That has not been achieved without power, drive, direction, advice, and encouragement. I am certain that if we are given the power to continue with the job, what my right hon. Friend has achieved so far will be improved upon, but that can only be done in the light of his available supplies of those three magic things: labour, machinery, and fertilisers.

Mr. E. Walkden: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the specific question of privately-owned playing fields and sports


grounds within a 20-mile radius of London, as distinct from those under the control of local authorities?

Mr. Williams: I did not hear my hon. Friend's observations on that point, but I understand that he said that it was thought that there were 1,000 acres within 15 miles of Charing Cross rendering no contribution at all. That may be the case,

but I am not aware of it. If my hon. Friend will give us the exact situation of the acres to which he refers, I will endeavour to tell him why this 1,000 acres has not been cultivated.

Mr. E. Walkden: I will endeavour to do so.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.